No one is going to do that directly or in foreseeable future.
Not gonna be needed for that.
Military US Military Is Scared Americans Won't Fight For Globalism
- Thread starter Bassoe
- Start date
I am throwing examples out there.
I'm not going to fight and die for a nation that wants me to die so they can replace my people with more brown foreigners.
Go fight that war yourself and don't act surprised when people hate your guts more than they hated the Vietnam vets.
Last edited:
You contradict yourself in trying to argue for this scenario; semi-proxy wars will never be something a draft is used for, and the only 'direct' fights between nuclear powers is India and Pakistan's tiff.
Now if you want to use India and Pakistan's fight to say why a conventional conflict between nuclear powers is possible without going to MAD, that is a...interesting view to apply to something requiring a US draft.
...I cannot believe you uttered this with a straight face.
There are more than enough forces present in Europe and in Ukraine itself to handle that scenario, if it is just a lone nuclear strike.
And if Putin lets the nuclear genie out against NATO forces, that pushes to strategic exchanges, then it's MAD time and a draft won't matter.
And from what I've seen, I'm not sure Putin has the support at home to actually let a nuke off the chain anymore, even among the new command chain.
I agree, neither of those scenarios is actually going to play out, or play out in a way that requires a US draft.
Examples which you know are not realistic, at all.
No one is going to invade the US, and a tac nuke from Putin is both not as likely anymore, and the 'conventional' response to if he did go that retarded is not something that would require a US draft to undertake. And if it did push to that point in the case Putin escalates, then it's MAD time anyway, so moot again.
Bad assumptions. It happened to USA already, and twice (Korea, Vietnam).
And India-China skirmishes. And the Sino-Soviet border conflict.
As i said already, don't look at 10 years, don't look at 20 years, look at 50 years. For one it's anyone's guess how the situation in Middle East evolves over even the next 20 years, nevermind 50. No one knows how well Iran's imperial ambitions will pan out for one.
Let's say Iran lucks out, carves out a ~120 million Shia fundamentalist empire and makes a move on Israel and\or Arab oil exporters.
That one might be quite a mess.
King Arts
Well-known member
If it's an proxy war then American's should not be forced to participate.
Conventional war to protect Ukraine, why should America get involved to protect a nation that is not an official ally? Why do you want Americans to risk their lives like that?
As for invasion of the homeland. Why would we not launch nukes?
Ixian
Well-known member
Russia is still using mostly conscripts.
Again Conscripts < Volunteers
This has been proven repeatedly.
Yes, and that's what led to the draft being removed from active use; the public wasn't going to put up with a draft being used in proxy-wars anymore.
Notice that these border conflicts involve having a border at issue.
Unless you think Russia is going to do something retarded in regard to Alaska, that doesn't really apply to the US situation.
I still don't see any scenario in that area, even 50 years out, where the situation requires a US draft to handle.
What if the proxy is an official ally?
What did USA promise to Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum?
Idunno, why didn't UK nuke Argentina? Argentina couldn't even nuke them back.
There is no magical distinction there. Training and morale matter.
Of course it's practically impossible to keep large amount of conscripts well trained and in high morale, but that's not the only use of draft.
More likely the fact that there was nothing to use the draft for in the meantime.
You think not sharing a border makes the conflict going nuclear *more* likely? Where is the logic in that?
Then i pity your lack of imagination.
No, even floating the idea of the draft is something that is a political career killer, and the public has zero taste for anyone who takes the idea seriously anymore.
The only people who actually take the idea of a draft seriously are recruiters who use it as a fear tactic, or sometime Pentagon heads when they need more funding for said recruiters.
No, I'm saying a conventional conflicts between nuclear powers that you pointed to are tiffs about territory they themselves want to take and hold.
Nuking said territory, or each other's deeper territory, would be counter-productive to what those powers want that territory for.
What I was trying to point out is that the same logic of a 'conventional war' between the US and Russia or the US and CCP doesn't have the same factors involved as those border disputes, nor the same stakes, and the only border the US has with either one is the US/Russia border in Alaska.
It's not lack of imagination, it's understanding how MAD and public sentiment has effectively rendered the Selective Service Act useless as anything but a tool of recruiter and budgetary rhetoric.
Again, public sentiments change, sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly. Maybe not in 20 years, but can you tell what they will be in 2070? Would you bet on it?
So far. There is absolutely no reason why such conflicts can't happen and not go nuclear. Even if after some proxy allies' territory. The same reasons to not pull out the nukes applies then.
But they can have different factors that come down to the same effect. There is no hard connection between MAD and borders.
Being so sure about your statements on MAD in very muddy areas is proof that you shouldn't be sure about them, and public sentiment, well, it does change.
Vietnam was about 2 decades after WW2, yet the public sentiment was different then. It's hard enough to predict the results of next election cycle, and you are now trying to convince me that the public sentiment regarding draft won't change for the next 2,3 or 5 decades.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Outbreak of piracy leading to the need for a drastic increase in Navy personnel to crew convoys. There's only so many people who will volunteer themselves a worse livelyhood for everyone else's bottom line, no matter how obvious it is, so long as it stays in the abstraction of the cost of goods.
It isn't a matter of needing boots on the ground to kick people's doors in and hold streetcorners, but of having enough hulls in the water to have a hope in Hell of watching out for the fuckhuge container ships.
...that seems unlikely, particularly given that interdicting pirates is much easier to do from the air, rather than the sea, and drones means larges areas can be continuously monitored.
And if the pirates have enough weaponry to take down drones and aircraft interdiction, then they also have a state sponsor, and we are back to more proxy-war bullshit.
If it gets that bad, I just expect Container ship to mount a nest of Suicide UAVs to go after pirate vessels.
That implies no fucks given competence from western countries, including governments and a variety of civilian shipping companies.
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
What about a scenario that would lead to more demands for pilots and other positions within the air force for something like an airlift along the lines of the Berlin Airlift?
There are a boatload of commercial pilots that have military experience, and a fair number of planes in the sky with US Carriers are able to be called to military transport duty if necessary.
Ixian
Well-known member
Yup, I served in the Navy, I served with several gay enlisted men.
Not a single one of them considered themselves members of the LGBTQ+ alphabet mafia.
But the Officers, gay or not, were all woke dingbats bar a very few exceptions.