Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 5:54:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
gentlemen, the military service [red]should never be used or considered as an agent of social conditioning[/red] per-se (It will teach these kids a thing or two about respect--teach them civility, etc).  The only social conditioning they should do is to end somebody else's society, or keep them from screwing with ours.  Mandatory military service will turn all areas of the military into [red]1. accept everyone, 2. don't desrciminate, 3.touchy-feely everyone can be a bad-ass military man/woman/gay guy/lesbian/slightly handicapped (LD-ED)/no talent wannabe Army of One.[/red]
View Quote


Which is exactly what it is today....

 We have the military that is the best trainied, most highly motivated, best equipped [red]team of killers in the world.[/red]
View Quote


I see you've been watching the tv. Our most sucessful operation in Afghanistan was the "Tora Bora" battle. Remember when the press and military were hooting about how they had "hundreds" of "the enemy" surrounded, and were killing the hell out of them?? When the operation was over they found 4 bodies, no wounded, and no blood trails. They all escaped.

 Don't let the Democrats-who damned near ruined it during Clinton-- make any decisions that would change a thing.  National service --fine,whatever makes the Ones-who-know-all feel like they are making a fresh and radically new idea for everyone to help out the world--[red]don't screw with our military.[/red]  
View Quote


We'll see about that, when and if they ever get into real combat. We all saw the results in Mogadishu.
Here's one problem with an all volunteer army I see. It's made up of people from a certain socio-economic class. It tends toward those who are less educated, and cannot make it in the civilian economy. This means they do not have the education, (like so many in our country), to know what America is Supposed to stand for. This is why we can do all the "Meals on wheels" programs we do. Now we're doing "Nukes or Dukes" programs. Is that what the military is for? With an all volunteer armed force, the govt. can do what they want with it, because those in the military don't know any better, and have no place else to go, and there is no protest at home, 'cause nobodys ivy league son or daughter is in harms way.
Most of those in the military have never, (like so many in our country), even read the Constitution they took an oath to. What do you think they are gonna do, if given an "Unlawful order", like they did when they bombed Serbia? Answer: "Follow Orders". And if that means knock, (or not), on YOUR door, so be it.

Today we have ONLY ONE class in the military...MILITARY!  So much for the idea of "citizen soldier". How many guys and women from the "upper class" are in the military? At least when there was a draft, some ivy leaguers served, some liked it and stayed. Gave the military some "social diversity". Not today.

Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:01:42 AM EDT
[#2]
First let me say that the Draft Idea of the Congressman from NY is a poorly crafted attempt to create anti war sentiment, that said I wonder how many posts on this thread are from guys who served in the post WW2 and 60's Military. I enlisted in 1964 and served 3 years as an 11B1P (Airborne Infantry) Airborne is 100% volunteer and the majority of the troopers were draftees. I served with and under alot of very good men, enlisted and officers alike who were drafted, some whom came out of the best schools in the land, without the draft most of these guys would have never served and many elected to make the Military a career after being drafted. The 173d ABN won 12 MOH's during its 7 years in RVN and the majority of those won were won by Draftee's. The average Draftee was no better nor no worse than the average volunteer. Arlington Cemetery and the "Wall" are filled with the names of dead brothers who were Draftee's. Please dont dishonor them by calling them conscripts, slaves or the product of a liberal Idea.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:17:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
First let me say that the Draft Idea of the Congressman from NY is a poorly crafted attempt to create anti war sentiment, that said I wonder how many posts on this thread are from guys who served in the post WW2 and 60's Military. I enlisted in 1964 and served 3 years as an 11B1P (Airborne Infantry) Airborne is 100% volunteer and the majority of the troopers were draftees. I served with and under alot of very good men, enlisted and officers alike who were drafted, some who came out of the best schools in the land, without the draft most of these guys would have never served and many elected to make the Military a career after being drafted. [red]The 173d ABN won 12 MOH's during its 7 years in RVN and the majority of those won were won by Draftee's. The average Draftee was no better nor no worse than the average volunteer. Arlington Cemetery and the "Wall" are filled with the names of dead brothers who were Draftee's. Please dont dishonor them by calling them conscripts, slaves or the product of a liberal Idea.[/red]
View Quote


Thanks bro. DAMN good points made......
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:42:58 AM EDT
[#4]
First of all, I do not wish to start a flame war.  I am replying to this forum to clarify a few technical examples that have been raised.
Quoted:
For all the technological advances we have made, we still have to have a man walk the earth to claim it, and I know of no technological advances that have significantly changed the workload or need for numbers of infantrymen in combat. The mission is the sqame.
View Quote

No argument here, as the land phase of Desert Storm should have clearly pointed out.  NO WAR CAN BE WON WITHOUT OCCUPATION/LIBERATION OF THE BATTLEGROUND.  This means you cannot rely completely on your Air Forces.

Quoted:The Airforce LIES. A lot. Remember how the Patriot missiles hit 100% of their targets in Gulf War I? Then that figure became 80%, then 50%, now they don't think they hit more than 10% if that.
View Quote

The Patriot units were commanded by troops in the U.S. Army, [i]NOT[/i] the U.S. Air Force.  As far as hit claims, I am not exactly sure who made them, but they were probably made by an upper echelon commander that was linked to those units.  Either way, I doubt if the person who made the claims was doing so to boost one particular branch of service's image.  He/she was probably boasting about the missile system's capabilities, since its mission in Desert Storm was different than for what it was designed.

Quoted:BTW, a wing of B17s carried a lot more tonnage than a single B2. A single B2 is not capable of that degree of destruction
View Quote

There was a old adage in among B-17 crews in the U.S. Army Air Corps in England during 1944:[

[i]"We can hit any town in Germany from 10,000 ft........as long as the town is big enough."[/i]  

It is not the amount of destruction that should be being debated.  It is the type of destruction.  Especially with the advent of GPS guidance, a B-2 carrying its 16 2,000lb. Mark 84 bombs can DEFINITELY achieve more destruction that would be beneficial to the military commanders and the overall war effort.  A B-2 loaded in that configuration can place each one of those Mk84s inside a 13 meter sphere, 3 dimensionally, around any target they designate.  They can also do this by only risking TWO crewmen.  It took TEN crewmen to man ONE B-17.  You guys are talking about sending a whole WING! And what did you accomplish?  You definitely did not take out 16 vital targets and at the same time risked hundreds of lives.  Please let us remember this as well, my B-2 made it back.  How many of your B-17s didn't?  I really hope this was not 1945 and you ran across any Me-262's. Finally, I can do what I did at NIGHT as well!  The Eighth Air Force relied on the British for bombing operations at night.

Quoted:The B2 was never meant for conventional warfare, it was meant to penetrate Soviet defences for a nuke run. Nukes are the only way a B2 can have greater destruction than a wing of B17s.
View Quote


This is very true. However just because it was not designed for conventional use, does not mean it cannot adapt.  The B-2 is a great example of this. Other examples are the Patriot Missile which was designed to be a Surface to Air Missile intended for use against aircraft, not incoming SCUDs.  Even the AR-15/M16 can perform missions that it was not intended to due advances in equipment and technology.  Yes the B-2 is an expensive piece of hardware at half the cost of an aircraft carrier (the aircraft is literally worth its weight in gold). However having the capability of being able to reliably destroy 16 targets on one flight and only risk the lives of two, is well worth the price.  

We must keep in mind that bombers do NOT fly fighter missions.  Bombers can't cycle even near the rate of fighters.  It takes much more support and logistics for bomber mission.  

The argument here is whether the price of technologically advanced and expensive pieces of military hardware have enough overall effect in wartime to be worth their monetary cost.  The people of the United States of America and their military leadership will always value the lives of the men and women who are serving over the taxes that must be paid to equip them.  Just my $0.02
EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:54:49 AM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:21:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you think the military's gotten soft now, with only volunteers in the ranks - just imagine how many whiney-assed, cry-babies we'd end up with if service was mandatory.
View Quote


The "whiney-assed, cry-babies" don't end up in the armed forces, they find a way to stay out. Many draftees fought and died bravely for this country in more than one war.
View Quote



I agree with wetidlerjr, draftee's were just as reliable, patriotic and many times more gungho than those who volunteered.  True character doesn't come with a switch, they were damn fine men very much interested in serving their country the best they could. God Bless our draftees, they served proudly.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:43:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Tom- your burner is right on! I think our generation is going to look at the Draft in a much different way than the current young Turks. First and foremost our Military is a direct reflection of our society and man is this society different than ours...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:22:47 PM EDT
[#8]
I was kept out of the military because of the Bullshit physical and the "medical disorders" that make one "Unfit" for service. If this initiative would pass, then maybe people like myself who had a willingness to serve would be allowed to.
As far as the whiny-assed people...I would truly believe that there would be a truckload of attitude adjustment with a Drill Sergeant climbing into their ass during basic training.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 2:22:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
[size=3]Repeat after me, mandatory military service only takes place in communist countries and free countries that have peaked in population. It is not economical for the best country on earth, that's us in the USofA, to have mandatory service. Get the idea out of your head and separate yourselves from the wacko liberals.[/size=3]
View Quote


Last time i checked we were not a communist country and we also havent peaked in population.

Why don´t you think for a second before you spout off nonsense.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 3:15:38 PM EDT
[#10]
I have yet to make the connection between democrats asking for a draft just ten years after democrats declared our military too large and slashed the balls out of it with a k-bar. Other than that, I really do not have an educated opinion on the draft. As far as I see it, we do not need one right now. Plenty of willing recruits.  We have provisions to start it should we get ourselves into a bloody mess. It is called selective service.

I also come to the conclusion in my mind that draftees/volunteers basically make up the same cross section of society. People from all walks of life do join the military. In fact, a large number join it to go to college. I am sure every ex/current military here would agree that many people who join the military do so on a "billy bad ass" mentality. Only to prove their cowardice. My only real "opposition" to the draft is that the way in which it was carried out would be decided by politicians, not the commanders who have a much greater working knowledge of the base mental requirements for military reruits.

The greatest courage usually comes from those you would least expect it too.  Just my uneducated 2 cents.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 3:32:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Love the Heinlein angle. If ya ain't willing to get a bit dirty for your country then you don't get to enjoy the priviledges. I would even like to see it applied to welfare/AFDC recipients now.
Being drafted is slavery? Does that mean them crackers who's numbers came up for vietnam get reparations? Damn! jesse jackson is gonna have a cow over that.
The most important thing this thread had shown me is there are far more loonies here than I thought before. But then again mebbe the DU'ers are getting even...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 3:40:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 3:44:25 PM EDT
[#13]
So if there is a Mandatory service...All those folks will be allowed VA benifits. The use of VA hospitals if that is really worth while. The government and the Armed services will go Bankrupt. It will be like Social Security everyone will be getting it. Does this mandatory service include women. After all they fought for equal rights and they should also have to do service.
This will not float unless we start doing real bad when we attack Iraq and then the Big K
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 5:14:59 PM EDT
[#14]
I think it will show all able bodied men that firearms are fun.
I really believe that all of us should serve our country.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:46:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Please let us remember this as well, my B-2 made it back.
View Quote

Interesting. Just how good is that radar-absorbing material anyhow? Were you shot at while you were delivering ordinance? Did you get any positive air-to-air or ground-to-air locks?

I note that they're keeping the B2s off the recent Gulf deployments. How far is it both ways to Korea again? [:D]
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:33:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
There was a old adage in among B-17 crews in the U.S. Army Air Corps in England during 1944:[

[i]"We can hit any town in Germany from 10,000 ft........as long as the town is big enough."[/i]  

It is not the amount of destruction that should be being debated.  It is the type of destruction.  Especially with the advent of GPS guidance, a B-2 carrying its 16 2,000lb. Mark 84 bombs can DEFINITELY achieve more destruction that would be beneficial to the military commanders and the overall war effort.  A B-2 loaded in that configuration can place each one of those Mk84s inside a 13 meter sphere, 3 dimensionally, around any target they designate.
View Quote
Another things that needs to be clarified is that those bombing runs often had specific targets (trainyards, factories, etc) but because the munitions and technology of the time were literaly hit and miss it would take several B-17s to take out the targets, and bombs would invaryably end up in someones backyard, kitchen, livingroom, whatever.

It was only later that there was outright bombing of whole towns and cities to break the morale of the German people.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:29:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Sounds like a good idea to me...

Give them a 3-MOS 'dream sheet' when they turn 18... If there's an opening in your class for what you pick and you qualify (based on BMT graduation scores), you get it... If not, 'needs of the service'... Make it 2yrs mandatory service, and most of those who didn't want to be there would end up as cooks, paper pushers, weather baloon chasers, etc... Send them to another part of the country/world, so they become aware of life beyond their city limits. When they're done (and some may never be 'done', deciding to stay after the 2yr requirement), hopefully they'll have learned something that will help them in their future life (job skills, 'focus', or at the very least, a resume reference)...

It would give some the realization that there's more to the world than what's on sale at the mall next week. Others would get the chance at a 'fresh start' on life, away from home and the associated problems. And of course, there are the types who just want something to belong to (and will, for 2 years at least, have that filled by a *legal* and well respected organization).

And the service would no longer have to be concerned with how many support personell they can retain or recruit (as these fields would be the easiest to fill with 2yr draftees)... So these efforts could be focused on the more specialized fields...


Edited to add:

I still think that combat specialties should be voluntary except in time of war. If some WANT to spend their 2yrs in the infantry, so be it (and some would). Otherwise, there are plenty of jobs neccicary-but-not-critical that can be filled by a conscript who just wants to go home (while still putting them through 2 years, and a chance to change their mind about the whole thing (and a bit more, too))...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:49:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:

Today we have ONLY ONE class in the military...MILITARY!  So much for the idea of "citizen soldier". How many guys and women from the "upper class" are in the military? At least when there was a draft, some ivy leaguers served, some liked it and stayed. Gave the military some "social diversity". Not today.

View Quote


This one made me think... Would some of the people I knew from my 1 year of ROTC, in 98, have been the same way (I'm in for the scholarship) if they had actually served before? Maybe some people would take military service and politics more seriously if they experienced it first hand (rather than going along with the 'Hey, why are we spending so much on the military' line that caused so much truble under Clinton...

And then there are those, like me (If selected... I find out on 8/Feb/02 weather I'm in (AF OTS) or not), who would eventually go anyway. So those who would volunteer would, of course, have little change (unless they would have done what I'm trying to (i.e. enter commissioned))...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 8:59:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Added to say, I wonder if these guys (Dems) actually beleive Iraq will be that tough of a nut to crack, or that the draft would be a deterrant to US military involvement.

Personally, I think that after 1 or 2 generations, it would bring 'the rest of the country' more in touch with reality on international/military issues, since they would all have been there in some way. People would base their information on 'when I was in the (AF/Army/Navy/etc)' rather than 'Peter Arnet said...' or 'I saw this made for TV movie once', or 'This Senator was on TV last night and...'...
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 10:53:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Just how good is that radar-absorbing material anyhow?
View Quote

Extremely good. Good enough to make its radar cross section smaller than that of even and F-117A.

Quoted:Were you shot at while you were delivering ordinance?
View Quote

Probably not since you never saw me on ingress. I think I see what you mean though.  The B-17s DID get shot at, that's putting it really lightly.

Quoted:Did you get any positive air-to-air or ground-to-air locks?
View Quote

Do you mean by enemy A/A and S/A threats? If so, I tend to doubt it.
Quoted:
I note that they're keeping the B2s off the recent Gulf deployments. How far is it both ways to Korea again? [:D]
View Quote

Of course they are not being deployed! They don't need to be.  With this platform we are able to strike anywhere with a flight time of 24-36 hours from Whiteman AFB.  Yes we need to establish tanker tracks, but this is the B-2's mission and in that mission, the KC-135s and KC-10s are well incorporated. Do you think we sent B-2s to Asia when they struck targets in Afghanistan?  Did we send them to Europe when they struck targets in Kosovo?  Of course we didn't. This is the beauty of the system. [i]"Global Power, Global Reach"[/i] is the motto at Whiteman. I am not, in any way, saying the B-2 is perfect.  In fact, I often question its value.  However, given its capabilities, it does give an air commander great latitude and flexibility with the tasking of difficult missions with point DMPI's (Designated Mean Point of Impact).  It also gives that same commander a sense of relief, along with his/her charges, knowing that he has greatly minimized the risks that have to be taken in executing the mission.  Understand that my origial intent was to display the [i]technolgical[/i] advances we have made in the past 55-60 years. Murphy's Law will always apply.
EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 11:11:53 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Another things that needs to be clarified is that those bombing runs often had specific targets (trainyards, factories, etc) but because the
munitions and technology of the time were literaly hit and miss it would take several B-17s to take out the targets, and bombs would invaryably end up in someones backyard, kitchen, livingroom, whatever. It was only later that there was outright bombing of whole towns and cities to break the morale of the German people.
View Quote


I know, I was just trying to illustrate the way bomber crews themselves felt about some of their taskings.  After flying over the same targets, sometimes up to five times, they sometimes became cynical when the subject of their accuracy with the famed Norton Bombsight was raised.
EDITED FOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 3:53:39 AM EDT
[#22]
The Draft had a positive effect on many young men. When the age of 20-21 came they had to make some very important life decisions, enlist, volunteer for the draft, get married, go to college ect. In other words you were forced to face life as an adult which is something very lacking in todays young. Weapons, so dear to our hearts here on AR15 are another factor. I believe we would have far fewer anti gun people if mandatory military servive were in effect. As an example, its hard to find men raised in the 50s and 60s who dont love guns, its not a coincidence that this group is the last to face the draft. Patriotism is another factor, you of course can be a patriot without serving in the military but military service most certainly raises the level. As to the cost of VA benefits, the average draftee ( 2yr service obligation ) didn't collect ANY benefits unless injured or wounded. Most Vet's I know would not go near a VA hospital. The Draft did have its slackers and sliders but the average kid in my youth (the 60's) looked forward to serving just as his Father and older brothers had served.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top