I can't hear you.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok. I guess we'll have the rapport we have, Res Ipsa. You'll play the role of supined boot licker and I'll play the role of truthteller, or "asshole" to you.


https://imgbb.com/

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whew. I'm going to trust that these represent your honest and true thoughts because they must've flown out of your head and through your keyboard to my screen with no time for you to plan in advance what you were going to write.

That's virtually 100% of the posts I make to this forum. I know. It's a burden.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Ok. I guess we'll have the rapport we have, Res Ipsa. You'll play the role of supined boot licker and I'll play the role of truthteller, or "asshole" to you.

- Doc

Well at least I got an answer to a couple of my questions. I suppose I should be grateful for that.

[_EAllusion]

hypothetically available to be forced into military service.

Hypothetically.

The level of dissonance is deafening.

- Doc

There's a massive political battle in-between actually being drafted into service and the vestigial registration system. Filling out the card carries a hypothetical "in the event of..." to its "in the event of..."

People know this, which is why it isn't a major issue even among people who consider the draft to be abhorrent.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

People know this, which is why it isn't a major issue even among people who consider the draft to be abhorrent.

Oh. Well, then why not just get rid of it then?

eta: I'll remind the casual reader the Infantry among all other Combat Arms were opened to women across all services. If there comes a day and we need to fill slots, because Trump wants to fight a land war in Asia, I think our girls should be at risk of being drafted, too. If our boys are good enough to be shot through the neck by an enemy's bullet I think our girls ought to be cool with it, too. You know. We all share the risk of war equally.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

People know this, which is why it isn't a major issue even among people who consider the draft to be abhorrent.

Oh. Well, then why not just get rid of it then?

eta: I'll remind the casual reader the Infantry among all other Combat Arms were opened to women across all services. If there comes a day and we need to fill slots, because Trump wants to fight a land war in Asia, I think our girls should be at risk of being drafted, too. If our boys are good enough to be shot through the neck by an enemy's bullet I think our girls ought to be cool with it, too. You know. We all share the risk of war equally.

- Doc

Good question. The GAO looked it over a few years back. The cost of SS was 24 M per year. The concern was how long it would take to start back up and get draftees to the military. The estimate was something like two years, which seems long to me. But then the estimate under the current program was around a year. Which also seems long to me. Guess I don’t appreciate the intricacies of bureaucracy.

I agree with you about drafting young women equally with men. I’m also for eliminating educational and religious deferments. No fortunate sons (or daughters).

And I didn’t know that about infantry. Good on them.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Good question. The GAO looked it over a few years back. The cost of SS was 24 M per year. The concern was how long it would take to start back up and get draftees to the military. The estimate was something like two years, which seems long to me. But then the estimate under the current program was around a year. Which also seems long to me. Guess I don’t appreciate the intricacies of bureaucracy.

I agree with you about drafting young women equally with men. I’m also for eliminating educational and religious deferments. No fortunate sons (or daughters).

And I didn’t know that about infantry. Good on them.

See? We agree on stuff. I too think every American ought to be subject to getting shot through the neck with a bullet. No exceptions! OR, just get rid of it. I think, tapping into the very small Libertarian area in my brain, that the draft is immoral and our sons and daughters aren't communal property to the old men and women who wage war.

Also, I believe, 18 of the 32 enlisted female soldiers made it through their One Station Unit Training recently. So, not too bad as long as standards were applied equally. Which. They kind of sort of were.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Good question. The GAO looked it over a few years back. The cost of SS was 24 M per year. The concern was how long it would take to start back up and get draftees to the military. The estimate was something like two years, which seems long to me. But then the estimate under the current program was around a year. Which also seems long to me. Guess I don’t appreciate the intricacies of bureaucracy.

I agree with you about drafting young women equally with men. I’m also for eliminating educational and religious deferments. No fortunate sons (or daughters).

And I didn’t know that about infantry. Good on them.

See? We agree on stuff. I too think every American ought to be subject to getting shot through the neck with a bullet. No exceptions! OR, just get rid of it. I think, tapping into the very small Libertarian area in my brain, that the draft is immoral and our sons and daughters aren't communal property to the old men and women who wage war.

Also, I believe, 18 of the 32 enlisted female soldiers made it through their One Station Unit Training recently. So, not too bad as long as standards were applied equally. Which. They kind of sort of were.

- Doc

I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, based on reading stuff here over the years. I flip back and forth between the two positions you described. Must be a libertarian nugget in my brain somewhere too,

On the kind of sort of, sounds like there were some differences in standards. Do you know what those were?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, based on reading stuff here over the years. I flip back and forth between the two positions you described. Must be a libertarian nugget in my brain somewhere too,

On the kind of sort of, sounds like there were some differences in standards. Do you know what those were?

Females have significantly lower physical fitness standards than males, and they were allowed to go through Infantry OSUT with their gender standards in tact. Though I believe a few of the females scored high on the male standard. This is generally a sore spot for Soldiers in that females typically score higher on their fitness tests (because it's not fairly equated to ability between the genders), which earns them a better reputation and more promotion points. I've always been a proponent of equalizing standards, but that realistically would reduce our readiness if we're being honest, unless you're willing to tailor the test to each military occupation (which I also felt should be considered).

There's some anonymous types who were griping the females consistently carried the lighter packs because they just weren't capable of rucking the heavier weights. So you have that. Also, they were allowed to keep their hair long though some shaved their heads a few weeks into training.

So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm cool with it as long as we approach the task of war pragmatically and then allow whomever to participate based on earned merit. War is what it is, and I'd prefer to have the best fighting on our side without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, etc...

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Doc.