Senate Votes to Require Women to Register for the Draft

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/congress-women-military-draft.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/senate-approves-women-draft/
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-to-register-for-the-draft-passes-senate.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._require_women_to_register_for_the_draft.html

I'm not crazy about this. Not because of any issues relating to gender, but because it makes me uncomfortable that we still have to register for the draft in 2016 (even though no one has actually been drafted since the 1970s). What do you guys think?
 
Perhaps, though, it might be a good idea to require people who live in a society to contribute to it in some meaningful, obligatory way.

The idiocy of millennials who are actively antisocial and useless, but expect to be respected, is really underscoring this. There are people in our society who apparently think that despite their absolute uselessness, they are somehow entitled to shit on the rest of society.

Perhaps obligatory social service of some kind would actually force people to recognize and acknowledge their connection to society.

The only problem is that the draft has been a loser as far as being successful at social engineering. You think that millennials are entitled? People made that argument about every generation before them, too. Nothing new about that. I would say the previous generations are even more entitled than they are.

Millenials are groomed to think that blue collar work was dead-end and useless. Many jobs in unskilled blue collared fields are being taken by illegal immigrants who are working for nearly nothing and are uninsured while also having no workman's comp coverage either. Tradesmen positions are frowned on and deemed second class by many. So this makes even fledgeling millennials avoid blue collar work altogether. Trade apprenticeships are also increasingly rare too. Most factory jobs now required very advanced skills and employ far fewer people than they did 20 years ago. Outsourcing destroyed much of the job training for those positions.

Millenials very technically gifted(they automatically know software that most of the older workforce had to take courses to grasp - word processors, spreadsheets, OS, and learn most software significantly faster than previous generations) to the point of making them theoretically more productive than any generation before them despite previous generations often wanting to pay them less and require in a number of cases they work for free in fruitless internships that cover a wide range of work that is supposed to be done by actual employees.

Millenials are saddled with more debt from Higher tuition costs and shrinking options in the labor force from the dismantling of apprenticeships. Their employers want to pay them less because "they are young", they face competition from a global workforce illegal/legal(Outsourcing), and they have people who constantly call them lazy for wondering "why should I even try". Lets be objective and clearly say that yes - the older generations are expecting them to work more for less and somehow be self-sufficient. I would argue the older generations are just as entitled if not in many cases more entitled. Heck, I have a relative from the Great Depression era who thought professional services like lawyers should be free when we were updating their will.

Granted you have idiots like Nora and her ilk, but as broken a clock as they are - they have a point about the shitty deal they have. Nobody wants them. Mostly because of their shitty attitude to everything, but also outsourcing/illegal immigration/free trade/blue collar training dismantling/internship abuse/high rent vs stagnant wages/commodities boom 'n bust(oil in particular)/housing collapse/credit tightening/high tuition/tech disruption have made them increasingly unwanted because they will not work longer hours for increasingly less to cover costs that are much higher than those of previous generations.

I think civil defense or assisting the elderly and poor would be a good draft.

That is the only use it will have. They are using drones more for civil defense, too. People are too costly to put on a battlefield.
 
Some people here getting far too angry about sjws. Calm down, IRL no one cares.

Hence this change!
 
Hopefully, this thins out the feminist crowd a bit.

Oh, who am I kidding? Most SJW types would probably be unfit for anything military.


Although a step in the right direction. Two steps back also applies here. It's basically saying "I'm going to shove the other half of the population in the death lottery as well."

At least, that's my opinion on a military draft.
 
The only problem is that the draft has been a loser as far as being successful at social engineering. You think that millennials are entitled? People made that argument about every generation before them, too. Nothing new about that. I would say the previous generations are even more entitled than they are.

Millenials are groomed to think that blue collar work was dead-end and useless. Many jobs in unskilled blue collared fields are being taken by illegal immigrants who are working for nearly nothing and are uninsured while also having no workman's comp coverage either. Tradesmen positions are frowned on and deemed second class by many. So this makes even fledgeling millennials avoid blue collar work altogether. Trade apprenticeships are also increasingly rare too. Most factory jobs now required very advanced skills and employ far fewer people than they did 20 years ago. Outsourcing destroyed much of the job training for those positions.

Millenials very technically gifted(they automatically know software that most of the older workforce had to take courses to grasp - word processors, spreadsheets, OS, and learn most software significantly faster than previous generations) to the point of making them theoretically more productive than any generation before them despite previous generations often wanting to pay them less and require in a number of cases they work for free in fruitless internships that cover a wide range of work that is supposed to be done by actual employees.

Millenials are saddled with more debt from Higher tuition costs and shrinking options in the labor force from the dismantling of apprenticeships. Their employers want to pay them less because "they are young", they face competition from a global workforce illegal/legal(Outsourcing), and they have people who constantly call them lazy for wondering "why should I even try". Lets be objective and clearly say that yes - the older generations are expecting them to work more for less and somehow be self-sufficient. I would argue the older generations are just as entitled if not in many cases more entitled. Heck, I have a relative from the Great Depression era who thought professional services like lawyers should be free when we were updating their will.

Granted you have idiots like Nora and her ilk, but as broken a clock as they are - they have a point about the shitty deal they have. Nobody wants them. Mostly because of their shitty attitude to everything, but also outsourcing/illegal immigration/free trade/blue collar training dismantling/internship abuse/high rent vs stagnant wages/commodities boom 'n bust(oil in particular)/housing collapse/credit tightening/high tuition/tech disruption have made them increasingly unwanted because they will not work longer hours for increasingly less to cover costs that are much higher than those of previous generations.



That is the only use it will have. They are using drones more for civil defense, too. People are too costly to put on a battlefield.
You can't put all on drones.
The Ukrainians with high tech weapons were ambushed and destroyed division size by a handful of ww2 vintage rockets.
Took years for a high tech America to kill the leader of a bunch of people using nothing more than rusty rifles.
Drones and robots are incredibly overestimated.
 
You can't put all on drones.
The Ukrainians with high tech weapons were ambushed and destroyed division size by a handful of ww2 vintage rockets.
Took years for a high tech America to kill the leader of a bunch of people using nothing more than rusty rifles.
Drones and robots are incredibly overestimated.

Ukraine was a perfect example of Asymmetrical warfare. Ukraine deployed standard forces that often had conscripts their weapons were 2 generations behind their opponents. Their opponents were civilians led by special forces who were many who were involved in Transnistria, Bosnia, and Chechnya. One of them being Igor Girkin. The Russian forces had advanced anti-air equipment that was able to down a commercial airliner flying above 30,000 ft. The Ukrainian forces were untrained going up against special forces who did have a lot of pieces of very high tech equipment.

As for Osama, he was being hidden by members of the Pakistani Military who supplied us with bad intel in order to protect him. That was an intelligence failure.

I would argue that drones have been devastatingly effective. So much so that our enemies complain that they can't kill any soldiers and it demoralizes them. In the past, conscripts too often were sent to the field and were sadly often left to die for no reason. Casualties are now even used as a political fulcrum. By only using drones, it denies ISIS the political victory of killing American troops on the field.

Conscripts are even more costly, ineffective, and too much of a liability to employ on a battlefield, even a homefront.
 
Divorce reform, Abortion reform, Paternity law reform, expansion of contract law, welfare reform, protection of the identities of accused rapists, improved libel laws

What about addressing the pay gap? That would be first on my list.

A woman making 7/10's of a man income and companies being able to get away with it seems like a more severe handicap for women's rights.

I can understand you think women should have equal liabilities to men, but I would argue they need the same economic standing first.
 
What about addressing the pay gap? That would be first on my list.

A woman making 7/10's of a man income and companies being able to get away with it seems like a more severe handicap for women's rights.

I can understand you think women should have equal liabilities to men, but I would argue they need the same economic standing first.
IIRC the pay gap stuff was debunked.
 
Personally, while I think it's best if we have everyone who's able involved in a form of public service, the fact is men are both more expendable as a whole and better suited for committing violence. I think it'd be best if combat units were segregated by gender like what the Red Army did during World War II, and I don't trust our government to run the draft in general. But a form of mandatory public service for all able Americans of both genders is something I'd be willing to get behind.

I understand why countries like Norway, Finland, Kurdistan, and Israel have a draft. They're small nations with troublesome neighbors, and they have to keep up a proper defense force to survive. But the US already has the most powerful military on the planet. Adding more meat to its grinder via draft is just not necessary.
What about addressing the pay gap? That would be first on my list.

A woman making 7/10's of a man income and companies being able to get away with it seems like a more severe handicap for women's rights.

I can understand you think women should have equal liabilities to men, but I would argue they need the same economic standing first.
The paygap is a product of statiscal manipulation. It persists in public consiousness because most people are really, really, really bad at analysing statistics.
 
IIRC the pay gap stuff was debunked.

The paygap is a product of statiscal manipulation. It persists in public consiousness because most people are really, really, really bad at analysing statistics.

I don't doubt it. There are lots of people who use bad stats to push their agendas. Interesting.

Anyway, for the US to try and use conscripts for combat with what happened in Vietnam; it seems to me a bridge too far. A public works program seems to be the general consensus here.

The world is too different now to rely on conscripts as troops.
 
Ukraine was a perfect example of Asymmetrical warfare. Ukraine deployed standard forces that often had conscripts their weapons were 2 generations behind their opponents. Their opponents were civilians led by special forces who were many who were involved in Transnistria, Bosnia, and Chechnya. One of them being Igor Girkin. The Russian forces had advanced anti-air equipment that was able to down a commercial airliner flying above 30,000 ft. The Ukrainian forces were untrained going up against special forces who did have a lot of pieces of very high tech equipment.

As for Osama, he was being hidden by members of the Pakistani Military who supplied us with bad intel in order to protect him. That was an intelligence failure.

I would argue that drones have been devastatingly effective. So much so that our enemies complain that they can't kill any soldiers and it demoralizes them. In the past, conscripts too often were sent to the field and were sadly often left to die for no reason. Casualties are now even used as a political fulcrum. By only using drones, it denies ISIS the political victory of killing American troops on the field.

Conscripts are even more costly, ineffective, and too much of a liability to employ on a battlefield, even a homefront.
Dude,you need conventional forces too,s special forces and drones won't be able to face a conventional enemy.
Isis is a conventional armed force now,not just a group of militants like al Qaeda or Taliban.
High tech shit is not always good,see the massive failure the F 35 jet is going to become.
 
Dude,you need conventional forces too,s special forces and drones won't be able to face a conventional enemy.
Isis is a conventional armed force now,not just a group of militants like al Qaeda or Taliban.
High tech shit is not always good,see the massive failure the F 35 jet is going to become.

Russia proved that wrong with Ukraine and Transnistria. They took Crimea using special forces and drones. They have a strong foothold of Ukraine doing that. Russia is rewriting the book when it comes to Asymmetrical warfare. The principle is simple, create the most damage using the least amount of forces/equipment/cost possible. Russia even works to find ways to involve other sides and other fighters into the mix to create chaos which distracts their opponents.

ISIS is becoming conventional, but notice the US is not fielding its own troops, and ISIS is losing territory. The US wants ISIS to fight conventionally because it can then destroy them with minimal effort. To fight conventionally means you must be in the open. The US can fight them by attrition by destroying their income, supply lines, and soldiers without having to place a single troop on the ground. ISIS still exists, because ISIS is a symptom of a social problem in the Middle East. The US lost a lot of ground in Iraq using troops to fix a regional social problem. If you remember, the US handily defeated Saddam but had significant losses afterward. Those losses were from irregular soldiers that wanted to see more US losses and force them out of the region so they could have a shot to start dictating regional policy by force. The US learned to become even more irregular by not even giving them the satisfaction of killing a single US fighter and still killing them. This is a continuing escalation of each group becoming more and more irregular. ISIS will soon have to settle for relying on lone gunmen who fight for their idea. At this point, a lone gunman among the civilian population with almost no coordination or planning is as irregular as it gets.

The F35 is flawed. The idea of making a Joint Strike Fighter was a mistake. The US Military thought they could create a weapon for every scenario and save money. They should have learned that necessity is the real mother of invention rather than money. They spent money preparing for a conflict that would never exist.
 
Russia proved that wrong with Ukraine and Transnistria. They took Crimea using special forces and drones. They have a strong foothold of Ukraine doing that. Russia is rewriting the book when it comes to Asymmetrical warfare. The principle is simple, create the most damage using the least amount of forces/equipment/cost possible. Russia even works to find ways to involve other sides and other fighters into the mix to create chaos which distracts their opponents.

ISIS is becoming conventional, but notice the US is not fielding its own troops, and ISIS is losing territory. The US wants ISIS to fight conventionally because it can then destroy them with minimal effort. To fight conventionally means you must be in the open. The US can fight them by attrition by destroying their income, supply lines, and soldiers without having to place a single troop on the ground. ISIS still exists, because ISIS is a symptom of a social problem in the Middle East. The US lost a lot of ground in Iraq using troops to fix a regional social problem. If you remember, the US handily defeated Saddam but had significant losses afterward. Those losses were from irregular soldiers that wanted to see more US losses and force them out of the region so they could have a shot to start dictating regional policy by force. The US learned to become even more irregular by not even giving them the satisfaction of killing a single US fighter and still killing them. This is a continuing escalation of each group becoming more and more irregular. ISIS will soon have to settle for relying on lone gunmen who fight for their idea. At this point, a lone gunman among the civilian population with almost no coordination or planning is as irregular as it gets.

The F35 is flawed. The idea of making a Joint Strike Fighter was a mistake. The US Military thought they could create a weapon for every scenario and save money. They should have learned that necessity is the real mother of invention rather than money. They spent money preparing for a conflict that would never exist.
If anything ever causes the US military to sink, it'll be the glut and bloat of military spending from the military industrial complex.

Sadly, no one with the power to make a difference is looking to change this disaster neither now nor in the future.
 
If anything ever causes the US military to sink, it'll be the glut and bloat of military spending from the military industrial complex.

Sadly, no one with the power to make a difference is looking to change this disaster neither now nor in the future.

Defense contractors are an upper multi-billion dollar industry. They put a lot of money into the hands of congressmen to produce tanks that sit in fields and airplanes that don't work. Example an Abrams Tank Yard:

hqdefault.jpg
http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed...tral.com:a83270b1-a90a-4994-ab57-09a87bf9d422

A yard full of tanks that no one needs, and we are still producing more of them because of congressional pressure. At this point, it might be cheaper to pay contractors to allocate surplus capacity on a need basis and force them to produce other products to supplement their income. We have to spend money to maintain all of this.
 
I'm completely fine with it.
Defense contractors are an upper multi-billion dollar industry. They put a lot of money into the hands of congressmen to produce tanks that sit in fields and airplanes that don't work. Example an Abrams Tank Yard:

hqdefault.jpg
http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed...tral.com:a83270b1-a90a-4994-ab57-09a87bf9d422

A yard full of tanks that no one needs, and we are still producing more of them because of congressional pressure. At this point, it might be cheaper to pay contractors to allocate surplus capacity on a need basis and force them to produce other products to supplement their income. We have to spend money to maintain all of this.
These aren't Abrams, these are M113s being stored at the Sierra Army Depot. Usually facilities such as the SIAD hold equipment in large numbers to help refurnish armour units in active duty with new vehicles and parts when needed. It helps tremendously to have a shitload of spares ready when parts break or vehicles get broken-down or get fucked up and need to be replaced. In addition, there are also other countries that operate Abrams in considerable numbers (Egypt alone has 1000+), and in our case the majority of vehicles not in use are kept in reserve or storage facilities so when the time arises to use them, we have thousands of tanks that can be used, not to mention even more that can replace lost or damaged tanks.
 
What about addressing the pay gap? That would be first on my list.

A woman making 7/10's of a man income and companies being able to get away with it seems like a more severe handicap for women's rights.

I can understand you think women should have equal liabilities to men, but I would argue they need the same economic standing first.
Women have lower incomes because they take lower paying jobs not because of discrimination, they actually are more likely to get high paying jobs when they apply (although they are slightly worse at salary negotiation than men)
 
I'm completely fine with it.

These aren't Abrams, these are M113s being stored at the Sierra Army Depot. Usually facilities such as the SIAD hold equipment in large numbers to help refurnish armour units in active duty with new vehicles and parts when needed. It helps tremendously to have a shitload of spares ready when parts break or vehicles get broken-down or get fucked up and need to be replaced. In addition, there are also other countries that operate Abrams in considerable numbers (Egypt alone has 1000+), and in our case the majority of vehicles not in use are kept in reserve or storage facilities so when the time arises to use them, we have thousands of tanks that can be used, not to mention even more that can replace lost or damaged tanks.

Wrong pic. I had a feeling that was the wrong pic. Here:
sierra-nevada-abandoned-tanks-3.jpg
sierra-nevada-abandoned-tanks-2.jpg
sierra-nevada-abandoned-tanks.jpg

Still the US has nearly 3000 Abrams tanks and we keep building more of them. We have to sell them now to get rid of them. The pentagon keeps saying no more tanks and yet congress keeps giving them more. Tanks to most commanders have become troop coffins to IED's.


Women have lower incomes because they take lower paying jobs not because of discrimination, they actually are more likely to get high paying jobs when they apply (although they are slightly worse at salary negotiation than men)

The numbers do indicate that, too. @*Asterisk* 's articles were very informative. As for negotiation, I would argue women are much worse than men.
 
The numbers do indicate that, too. @*Asterisk* 's articles were very informative. As for negotiation, I would argue women are much worse than men.
Equality of oppurtunity doesn't mean equality of outcome.

Men and women are different. We have different interests and different tendencies. We're drawn to different hobbies and different occupations, and prioritise different matters. There are exceptions, but the differences are about the general and not the particular. Ronda Rousey could tapout most of the men alive, but she'd get killed by Hershel Walker even though her combat skills blow his out of the water.

That's not a matter of good or bad, that's just a matter of what is.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo