Drafting Possibly Returning - Discussion

[vladic]

Hey all, well to sum how this started it started with a paper im writing on Murder (which i will not put on the board due to the dividing nature of said paper) however i did end up discussing with my fellow WoW players the goverments possible play, the Re-instatment of drafting.

Now to all who do not know what drafting entails, it requires you to be of 18 years of age and you will receive a notification letter from the goverment telling you (thats right TELLING not asking) that you must server the army/navy/RAF for two years in the current war.

Now the debate that began brought up this question -  Who should be sent to the war?

My opinion - Criminals and offenders and i have a reasonable story to explain this.

A friend of mine, his grandfather was drafted for a war at the age of 19 and during this war he was crippled and has shell shock (extreme tremors he recieves at times) now for the last 50 years he has been confined in a wheel chair, however before his drafting occured he was expected to attend university (which back in those days was like WOOOOHHH!!!!! kinda deal) however the drafting prevented that and has made him quite a cynic.

Now should drafting becoming a thing of existence again i propose that instead of sending college graduates and university attendee's who are more then likely to make good contributions to society and possibly massive contributions (cures, technology ETC) we should send criminals and offenders, now im not talking about shop lifters as i myself have shop lifted in the past and am not attending university in september, im talking repeat jail time offenders, assaults, murder (those who would probably also relish the chance to get out and kill again however this time at a specific enemy)for obviouse reasons rapists would not be send due to the fact female/male officers would be possibly attacked on base or in combat.

What do you guys think of this? should we send hard workers and possible geniouses to war or send those who have already thrown there chances away multiple times before? or should drafting not return what so ever?

Vladic

[Snokio]

I don't think drafting can be too picky when it comes to war, especially if there is a threat to homeland and needs everyone who is capable of fighting (i.e. WWII rather than Iraq).
 
I also don't think criminals would make good soldiers, they won't be disciplined, follow orders and are more likely to cause more friendly kills than enemy kills (hummm, I wonder if America uses Criminals for drafting? :g:).
 
To win wars, your going to need some smart people, not just cannon fodder

[T-Bag]

Drafting won't return. It's not a vote winner, and there is not a big enough war to justify it. If it's a case of launch a war with Iran/Pakistan or whoever America pick next (more likely Iran due to their currect lack of Nuclear weapons) and requiring the draft, or leave them be and not need it, they'll choose not to do it.

America can't do it single handedly and as long as not enough countries follow them it can't happen.

As for Criminals, it's been done in the past, but I don't think that'll win votes either.

If world war breaks out, all bets are off, but until then most governments hands are tied about the drafting policy, it's political suicide.

[vladic]

ill be honest if i was drafted, id rather run like hell and possibly get caught then have to kill some 1 just cause a pencil pusher tells me to, killing in my own home for self defence that i could do, it would still suck but id do it if needs be.

and yea america did use some criminals for squads for black ops missions as criminals can be disiplined agian but they need really really dangerous stuff to get there shud we say "rage" out, there was a show on TV a while ago about an old american commando unit, 5 guys and there handler (the boss basicly) all 5 was convicts, attacked a nazi bunker on german border near start of the war and all 5 went ape on the nazi's.

handler described em as savage as they killed and mutilated and all sorts, so i guess you could use criminals, but i think an incentive or high risk job would be needed.

[A Twig]

I don't really have too much of a problem with National Service as a concept. Two years isn't that big a part of your life. If it really would benefit our society and not be funded at the expense of the NHS etc then go for it.

[Benny]

Nice post. Now i'm old enough to miss out, I think it's a great idea.

I'm not sure that the divisive selection policy is a good idea, but the way that the recruitment works means you'll break down all the bad apples and reconstitute them as soldiers anyway.

If you wanted to be truly difficult, why not quantify contribution to society. You can do your draft at 18 for two years, or you can defer it. If you haven't contributed 'Ã,£Ã,£Ã,£x' tax after 10 years you have to do 3 years.

Much fairer. That way all those petty little shop lifters who amount to nothing, and I'm sure you are the opposite, still get caught in the drag net.



I'd vote for it. /co2.


edit- post your paper, I'd like to read it and that's what this section is for. It's a paper, it may not reflect your opinion on the right thing so it's all good.

[b00n]

Depends what we're talking about here - do we mean that conscripted soldiers would be treated as part of the enlisted army and sent off to fight overseas?  In that case you would be forcing people to do something which they may have valid moral objections to, and that's wrong.