Women and Selective service

[Luigi]

The draft has never applied to the Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Merchant Marines, or anything else - just the Army. During World War II, many men who thought they might be drafted into the Army preferred to volunteer for one of the other branches of service, where they would have a little more leeway in choosing their final niche. Ask your grandfathers.

The draft has been in existence since God-only-knows when. But the last soldiers to be actually drafted were drafted in 1973. Starting July 1, 1973, the US converted to an all-volunteer army, but registering for the draft has remained mandatory.

Even if women are required to register for the draft, they will not likely be drafted into combat roles - foot soldiers, infantry, front lines, whatever you want to call it.

It takes something like 20 or 30 personnel behind the lines to support every soldier on the front lines, though. Quartermasters, record keepers, cooks, planners, mechanics, trainers, security personnel, maintenance personnel, and on and on.

IF this country were ever to re-instate the draft (highly unlikely), AND women were to be actually drafted, they could fill any number of the positions just mentioned (as CatherineM has already astutely stated).

 

BTW, I have a cousin who was the first female fighter pilot in the Air Force. She just got promoted to brigadier general and works at the Pentagon. Her husband was also Air Force, but he retired from it some years ago. And I have a sister who was an Air Force Lt. Colonel. And one of my recent bosses was a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel.

And one of my aunts used to be an Army recruiter in the very early days of the all-volunteer Army. That aunt stayed in the reserves after she left active duty. When 9-1-1 happened, she was working at a grocery store, but she was called back to active duty at the Pentagon. I would love to have sat in on that exit interview - "Why have you decided to terminate your employment with us?" "Well, I got a better offer from the Pentagon!"

Edited February 5, 2016 by Luigi

[bardegaulois]

8 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Selective service is indeed required. In fact, men can't receive government loans for college until they sign up. I know this because I had to do it last year.

You can indeed register online. However, when I went to register, I found out the government had automatically registered me on my 18th birthday. I think that's the only example of efficiency I've ever seen out of a government agency.

Had you applied for federal financial aid for university before your 18th birthday? That might automatically trip you in the system, SSS registration being a prerequisite for Department of Ed moneys.

 

3 hours ago, Luigi said:

The draft has been in existence since God-only-knows when. But the last soldiers to be actually drafted were drafted in 1973. Starting July 1, 1973, the US converted to an all-volunteer army, but registering for the draft has remained mandatory

Not exactly. The Selective Service System was dormant for about five years after the final draft lottery; thus, no one needed to register in the mid-70s. Jimmy Carter reactivated it about five years later and registration again became required, even though there has since been no conscription.

[PhuturePriest]

23 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

Had you applied for federal financial aid for university before your 18th birthday? That might automatically trip you in the system, SSS registration being a prerequisite for Department of Ed moneys.

Nope. I was indeed 18 when I applied.

[superblue]

23 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

It does seem like an incredibly inefficient way of getting a proper military force, especially today with the prevalence of individualism. In simpler times it was just understood that it was your duty to serve your country if called, but those times are long gone, and I'm not certain that's necessarily good or bad. I'd probably be a draft dodger, unless the war were so just I felt compelled to fight.

* sigh * a draft dodger,

how utterly pathetic, you haven't even hit puberty yet, and you want to be a draft dodger... it is kind of intriguing though to ponder what you would consider being compelled to fight for. What is even sadder , is that you are proud to announce that you would prefer to be a draft dodger.  At least you could have had some essence of maturity if you had at least said you would rather be a non combatant service member than a flat out dirty hippie draft dodger, which if you were considering hiding in Canada, forget it, they wont  harbor cowards anymore.  Make sure to burn your voter registration card while you are at it, it will help America in the long run.

[bardegaulois]

On 2/4/2016, 9:20:14, PhuturePriest said:

It does seem like an incredibly inefficient way of getting a proper military force, especially today with the prevalence of individualism. In simpler times it was just understood that it was your duty to serve your country if called, but those times are long gone, and I'm not certain that's necessarily good or bad. I'd probably be a draft dodger, unless the war were so just I felt compelled to fight.

I'm kind of with Superblue on this one. If a situation were ever so grave as to warrant a national call-up (which nowadays would likely constitute an attack on American soil), it would be a necessary duty to serve in some function or another, not necessarily--and even most likely not--in combat; less than 10% of our military is even in a combat arms unit. Moreover, you proudly declare yourself a future priest; do you think any bishop would even consider you a candidate for the priesthood if you've failed to fulfill your civil duties? Even if he does, by some odd stretch of the imagination, what do you think your parishioners who did answer the call would think of you?

Very often, we desire to serve in otherwise noble and praiseworthy ways, but that is not the service and sacrifice that is required of us--and thus not the service and sacrifice that will make us holy and save us in the end. Think about that a little.

[SaintOfVirtue]

On 2/4/2016, 9:20:14, PhuturePriest said:

It does seem like an incredibly inefficient way of getting a proper military force, especially today with the prevalence of individualism. In simpler times it was just understood that it was your duty to serve your country if called, but those times are long gone, and I'm not certain that's necessarily good or bad. I'd probably be a draft dodger, unless the war were so just I felt compelled to fight.

I find your naivete amusing. 
There has never been a "simpler time" when every man was a picturesque Captain America just hoping to be drafted. People have been dodging military service for as long as compulsory service has been around.  Heck, people would literally knock out their teeth to avoid being placed in infantry back in "simpler times" (turns out you needed your front teeth to tear open the cartridges of powder for a musket. Don't believe me? just google the term "4-F Civil War") 
By the way, the whole "just war" thing is a mere exercise in philosophy; it has little practical application.  Real wars are so complex and dynamic it is impossible to label them objectively just or unjust until the history books are written.

[superblue]

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

I'm kind of with Superblue on this one. If a situation were ever so grave as to warrant a national call-up (which nowadays would likely constitute an attack on American soil), it would be a necessary duty to serve in some function or another, not necessarily--and even most likely not--in combat; less than 10% of our military is even in a combat arms unit. Moreover, you proudly declare yourself a future priest; do you think any bishop would even consider you a candidate for the priesthood if you've failed to fulfill your civil duties? Even if he does, by some odd stretch of the imagination, what do you think your parishioners who did answer the call would think of you?

Very often, we desire to serve in otherwise noble and praiseworthy ways, but that is not the service and sacrifice that is required of us--and thus not the service and sacrifice that will make us holy and save us in the end. Think about that a little.

you are totally wizzing in the wind on this one, he leans farther than the Tower in Italy, and is fruitier than a box of fruit loops, (and that is a double entendre intented ) he is literally in the closet about everything and can not step down from his pedestal of illusions long enough to consider what being in the military really entails, yet because he took 2 minutes to find out about the selective service he is going to try an some how presume to act like he understands anything about the military.

 

[Amppax]

Well this just got fun.  

[PhuturePriest]

5 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

I'm kind of with Superblue on this one. If a situation were ever so grave as to warrant a national call-up (which nowadays would likely constitute an attack on American soil), it would be a necessary duty to serve in some function or another, not necessarily--and even most likely not--in combat; less than 10% of our military is even in a combat arms unit. Moreover, you proudly declare yourself a future priest; do you think any bishop would even consider you a candidate for the priesthood if you've failed to fulfill your civil duties? Even if he does, by some odd stretch of the imagination, what do you think your parishioners who did answer the call would think of you?

Very often, we desire to serve in otherwise noble and praiseworthy ways, but that is not the service and sacrifice that is required of us--and thus not the service and sacrifice that will make us holy and save us in the end. Think about that a little.

I'm afraid you have missed a very important detail. Allow me to quote my post and highlight it.

On 2/4/2016, 8:20:14, PhuturePriest said:

It does seem like an incredibly inefficient way of getting a proper military force, especially today with the prevalence of individualism. In simpler times it was just understood that it was your duty to serve your country if called, but those times are long gone, and I'm not certain that's necessarily good or bad. I'd probably be a draft dodger, unless the war were so just I felt compelled to fight.

We are not bound to fight in unjust wars. We are not morally obligated to fight in them, and it is not "honorable" to fight in them. It's no more a civic duty to fight in an unjust war than it is to support abortion because it is defined as a right of the mother in our legal system.

I know a seminarian (a Phatmasser, in fact) whom desired to enter the military, but was hesitant to do so because the Iraq War was unjust. He compensated by strictly functioning as a combat medic, and nothing else. If such an option were offered, I would be less hesitant to be forcibly taken into an army fighting an unjust war.

It's not being a hippie or a coward. It's understanding you shouldn't participate in unjust wars, and we haven't had a just war since 1945.

4 hours ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

I find your naivete amusing. 
There has never been a "simpler time" when every man was a picturesque Captain America just hoping to be drafted. People have been dodging military service for as long as compulsory service has been around.  Heck, people would literally knock out their teeth to avoid being placed in infantry back in "simpler times" (turns out you needed your front teeth to tear open the cartridges of powder for a musket. Don't believe me? just google the term "4-F Civil War") 
By the way, the whole "just war" thing is a mere exercise in philosophy; it has little practical application.  Real wars are so complex and dynamic it is impossible to label them objectively just or unjust until the history books are written.

It certainly gets less complex when the Pope (who is now canonized) openly says a war lacks the necessary qualifiers to be just and is, therefore, an unjust war.

We go around the world taking out regimes we don't like without being asked to, put in a government that we like, and expect to be praised for it. No Catholic is morally bound to participate in such wars, even if he is called upon by his country.

6 hours ago, superblue said:

* sigh * a draft dodger,

how utterly pathetic, you haven't even hit puberty yet, and you want to be a draft dodger... it is kind of intriguing though to ponder what you would consider being compelled to fight for. What is even sadder , is that you are proud to announce that you would prefer to be a draft dodger.  At least you could have had some essence of maturity if you had at least said you would rather be a non combatant service member than a flat out dirty hippie draft dodger, which if you were considering hiding in Canada, forget it, they wont  harbor cowards anymore.  Make sure to burn your voter registration card while you are at it, it will help America in the long run.

I may be the height of a Hobbit, but I have indeed reached puberty. I have a single hair on my chest and peach fuzz to prove it.

[Basilisa Marie]

On 2/4/2016, 6:20:14, PhuturePriest said:

It does seem like an incredibly inefficient way of getting a proper military force, especially today with the prevalence of individualism. In simpler times it was just understood that it was your duty to serve your country if called, but those times are long gone, and I'm not certain that's necessarily good or bad. I'd probably be a draft dodger, unless the war were so just I felt compelled to fight.

Don't dodge. Establish yourself as a conscientious objector. 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Basilisa Marie

[superblue]

8 hours ago, Basilisa Marie said:

Don't dodge. Establish yourself as a conscientious objector. 

Edited: personal attack - beatitude.

[Nihil Obstat]

Seriously guys, are we not going to call out Superglue here? Something is clearly wrong with him. But regardless, he should not be posting here.

[Basilisa Marie]

1 hour ago, superblue said:

he is too busy kicking porn in the face and having bon fires to burn his non homosexual posters of that one Jonas brother he was crushing on to really have to worry about ever serving in the military. Plus there is a physical fitness test that there is no possible way he could ever pass to even have to worry about needing to be a coward and running.

Dude quit inflicting posts that convey a nasty attitude on people. It tends to give the impression that you're stupid and mean, and obviously that isn't true. 

 

39 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Seriously guys, are we not going to call out Superglue here? Something is clearly wrong with him. But regardless, he should not be posting here.

Okay.

[bardegaulois]

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

We are not bound to fight in unjust wars. We are not morally obligated to fight in them, and it is not "honorable" to fight in them. It's no more a civic duty to fight in an unjust war than it is to support abortion because it is defined as a right of the mother in our legal system.

I know a seminarian (a Phatmasser, in fact) whom desired to enter the military, but was hesitant to do so because the Iraq War was unjust. He compensated by strictly functioning as a combat medic, and nothing else. If such an option were offered, I would be less hesitant to be forcibly taken into an army fighting an unjust war.

And who made you the arbiter of whether a war is just or not? Young people often presume they are divinely appointed to do so, but oddly enough their conclusions about what is just almost always happens to coincide exactly with what it is that they would fancy doing anyway. Look at all these psychopathic "SJWs" on university campuses nowadays if you doubt me. Likewise, I have never met a sincere pacifist. I've met plenty of people who've claimed to be pacifists, but, on getting to know them better, I found them generally to be cowards lacking in character.

To be realistic for a moment, there will never be another draft in the United States save in case of an immanent invasion, which fact alone is sufficient to make the war just. Less than 10% of military personnel are in combat positions, so it's most likely you wouldn't be placed in a combat position but instead one in which your aptitudes will allow you better to serve the forces. It's fine to think in hypotheticals, but given an option between spending a couple character-building years as an army cook or mechanic or spending a few more years than that in confinement in disciplinary barracks and the label "felon" following you around throughout life, I'd hope you'd have the good sense to choose the former.

[Nihil Obstat]

12 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

Dude quit inflicting posts that convey a nasty attitude on people. It tends to give the impression that you're stupid and mean, and obviously that isn't true. 

 

Okay.

I do sincerely and honestly think he has some sort of emotional problem or mental illness. His posting is erratic, aggressive, and mostly incoherent. He needs professional help.