We Need a Limited Military Draft

Because Ukraine is running out of them faster than Russia. Eventually there wont be Ukrainians to drive the columns of advanced NATO tanks into the Russian minefields. At some point, we either start massing our own boots on the ground there, or accept a Russian victory.

 

This was of course all predictable.

 

Why would your first and only choice be to amass US boots on the ground?

 

We won't need to put ground troops in Ukraine. That's isn't how that is giong to go if NATO gets involved, the war isn't about Ukraine anymore.

We would have more than enough ground troops to totally wipe out Russia in a war that was confined to Ukraine though.

Russia's contingent in Ukraine would look like Saddam's troops in Gulf war one.

 

Each chapter of America's history has placed a unique demand on our nation's defense. Who knows what form it will take in the future?

But, I'm fairly convinced that World War Three is just around the corner, and if so I'm sure that the draft will be right along behind it.

In the meantime, I'm going to point at the House Republicans who want to prevent military families from traveling to get an abortion, to get around abortion bans in the states where they are stationed, as one of the reasons why recruitment numbers are low this year.

You say we should reduce our military commitments, but you didn't mention any examples. *cough* Ukraine *cough* So, are there any real military commitments to remove that wouldn't lead the world to hell in a handbasket?

Did you hear about the coup in Niger? I heard they were flying Russian flags. Russia has its hands in a lot of pies. Yikes! That had me thinking, didn't we end up going into Africa during WW2 also? What is the likelihood that we might be going back there in WW3 to put out the fires set by another world-trotting, power-hungry empire (this time Russia).

Cutting back on our military commitments might be a mistake at this time...

But that said, as a Democrat, I would love to redirect some military funding into social programs. Those missing trillions spent on defense that we've lost track of would fit nicely into a budget to help pay for Medicare for all.

 

Not sure. But what I am pretty sure of is that if we have control over the air over the battlefield, combined with smart weapons systems, we can decimate enemy armies on the ground from the air. So unless we want to occupy entire countries and do nation building, I don’t think possessing a vast Army is necessary to our national security.

I think we can re-imagine the Army as a somewhat smaller force, but more elite, and with a heavier dependence on Reserves in the event of the need for a bigger Army.

 

Its not. Either Russia is gonna keep what its taken, or we're gonna have WW3 with them. I don't think WW3 is worth keeping a few ethnically Russian areas 'free' of Russia. My choice is to stop sending Ukraine weapons and urge them to sue for peace while there's still some young Ukrainians left to rebuild with.

 

What do you mean 'the war isn't about Ukraine anymore'? Whats it about?

 

I found your post very entertaining! Thank you!

 

Well it looks like we're going to have no choice but to "re-imagine" a smaller force.

 

The LAST TIME we lost a war was when we had a limited draft (Vietnam). Just sayin'. Having a bunch of people who don't want to be there isn't good for
morale or function - just ask the Russians.

 

Force them to lose......and hope Russia takes only a part of Ukraine, and not all..... You are more trusting than others.

 

No one wants the draft... not civilians, not the military... no one. I joined a conscript (draft) Army and left an all Volunteer Force. Volunteer is MUCH better.
Folks that don't want to be in the Army suck up massive amounts of attention and resources. It's the old "the squeecky wheel gets the oil" concept. I Commanded a Basic Training Company after the Viet Nam War ended. It was common practice back then for judges to offer violators active duty as an alternative to jail. What a disaster. It actually did help some people, but took inordinate time and effort.

Warfare is changing and massive maneuver forces facing off against each other has largely been replaced with asymmetrical warfare. Smaller forces engage other smaller forces. In this new era of DPICM and "sensor fused weapons", large formations of troops are simply bigger targets. In coming major wars, EMP generators will largely disable many of our new weapons, communications and more.

Lots of people won't be the most important element of victory as it often has been in the past.

 

The only way Russia takes all of Ukraine is if Ukraine loses all their soldiers in the Russian minefields ...which it appears Ukraine may be intent on doing. The stuff we sent to Ukraine is a far better force multiplier on defense. They're still in a great position to sue for peace. For now.

 

So far neither side is backing down. There are Western diplomats who urge them to sign a truce, and US has asked them to negotiate, but they are not ready. Cutting aid in order to force the issue would only encourage Russia to take all of Ukraine, so that sounds like a bad strategy.

 

The US military that won the Gulf War was lauded as the most powerful military in world history, and it was. But immediately after that we began a pretty massive draw down to vastly reduce our military capability because...why not? We won the Cold War.

Except that didn't mean that we disbanded NATO, our commitment to them, or our commitments to any other region on the globe. We kept the exact same commitments we had during the cold war, shrunk the force, and didn't even do much to increase our size during the GWOT. Now that we can't fill our ranks with the disinterested, sickly generation that we depend on to fight our wars, it does seem to me that we have two choices: Reduce our commitments to match the military that we can staff, or restart the draft.

The common sense solution is to reduce our commitments, but my guess is that our ruling class will choose option 3: Just say everything is fine until we need the military to perform the job we've committed to, and everything blows up in our faces.

 

I had Basic Training at Ft. Ord in October - December, 1974. Where were you commanding a Basic Training Company after the Viet Nam War?

 

That’s far from true. I am a fan of NATO but if we pulled out of NATO they would be the ones living in fear, not us. We fund NATO to a much greater extent than any other member. We have assets all across Europe. They would be the ones wondering what to do.

 

I wouldnt mind toying with the idea of an automatic draft for those who illegally crossed the border and want to stay.

 

We don't fund NATO. You don't seem to know how NATO is organized or funded.

What I said is that if we pulled out of NATO, we would have to increase out military spending big time to replace the benefits of being in NATO.

Sure, it would be a big hit to the allies as well, not just us,

 

Their defense capabilities would collapse without us. Our contribution to NATO is unmatched. Many NATO countries didn’t even put in the required amount into military spending. They ride on our capabilities, we do not ride in theirs. We will be just fine if we left NATO. I’m not advocating for it but we would be fine

 

You are not getting the point. It has nothing to do with who would hurt the most.

If we divorce ourselves from 3+million allied troops, then we would have to replace that with something else, which would require a very large investment.

 

We wouldn’t because we wouldn’t be under the same obligations