No one is going to do that directly or in foreseeable future.Invasion of homeland US.
Not gonna be needed for that.Conventional response to Russia tactical nuking of Ukraine
No one is going to do that directly or in foreseeable future.Invasion of homeland US.
Not gonna be needed for that.Conventional response to Russia tactical nuking of Ukraine
I am throwing examples out there.No one is going to do that directly or in foreseeable future.
Not gonna be needed for that.
I'm not going to fight and die for a nation that wants me to die so they can replace my people with more brown foreigners.So defense of the homeland is not worthwhile?
Or a fully conventional world war 3?
Gotcha.
You contradict yourself in trying to argue for this scenario; semi-proxy wars will never be something a draft is used for, and the only 'direct' fights between nuclear powers is India and Pakistan's tiff.History has proven that semi-proxy wars, or even direct conflicts between nuclear powers can absolutely happen and not be nuclear.
Any major naval conflict or one requiring major naval logistics could result in small draft for naval personnel, especially if current problems with the following persist.
...I cannot believe you uttered this with a straight face.Invasion of homeland US.
There are more than enough forces present in Europe and in Ukraine itself to handle that scenario, if it is just a lone nuclear strike.Conventional response to Russia tactical nuking of Ukraine
I agree, neither of those scenarios is actually going to play out, or play out in a way that requires a US draft.No one is going to do that directly or in foreseeable future.
Not gonna be needed for that.
Examples which you know are not realistic, at all.I am throwing examples out there.
Bad assumptions. It happened to USA already, and twice (Korea, Vietnam).You contradict yourself in trying to argue for this scenario; semi-proxy wars will never be something a draft is used for,
And India-China skirmishes. And the Sino-Soviet border conflict.and the only 'direct' fights between nuclear powers is India and Pakistan's tiff.
As i said already, don't look at 10 years, don't look at 20 years, look at 50 years. For one it's anyone's guess how the situation in Middle East evolves over even the next 20 years, nevermind 50. No one knows how well Iran's imperial ambitions will pan out for one.Now if you want to use India and Pakistan's fight to say why a conventional conflict between nuclear powers is possible without going to MAD, that is a...interesting view to apply to something requiring a US draft.
If it's an proxy war then American's should not be forced to participate.History has proven that semi-proxy wars, or even direct conflicts between nuclear powers can absolutely happen and not be nuclear.
Any major naval conflict or one requiring major naval logistics could result in small draft for naval personnel, especially if current problems with the following persist. The question of whether a draft may be needed is not one to be looked at in perspective of 10 years or so, look all the possibilities of next 50 years.
Middle East? Southeast Asia? Who the hell knows.
Conventional war to protect Ukraine, why should America get involved to protect a nation that is not an official ally? Why do you want Americans to risk their lives like that?Invasion of homeland US.
Conventional response to Russia tactical nuking of Ukraine
Better to have an not need then need and not have.
Russia has shown a nob nuclear conventional war can happen.
Yes, and that's what led to the draft being removed from active use; the public wasn't going to put up with a draft being used in proxy-wars anymore.Bad assumptions. It happened to USA already, and twice (Korea, Vietnam).
Notice that these border conflicts involve having a border at issue.And India-China skirmishes. And the Sino-Soviet border conflict.
I still don't see any scenario in that area, even 50 years out, where the situation requires a US draft to handle.As i said already, don't look at 10 years, don't look at 20 years, look at 50 years. For one it's anyone's guess how the situation in Middle East evolves over even the next 20 years, nevermind 50. No one knows how well Iran's imperial ambitions will pan out for one.
What if the proxy is an official ally?If it's an proxy war then American's should not be forced to participate.
What did USA promise to Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum?Conventional war to protect Ukraine, why should America get involved to protect a nation that is not an official ally?
Idunno, why didn't UK nuke Argentina? Argentina couldn't even nuke them back.As for invasion of the homeland. Why would we not launch nukes?
There is no magical distinction there. Training and morale matter.Russia is still using mostly conscripts.
Again Conscripts < Volunteers
This has been proven repeatedly.
More likely the fact that there was nothing to use the draft for in the meantime.Yes, and that's what led to the draft being removed from active use; the public wasn't going to put up with a draft being used in proxy-wars anymore.
You think not sharing a border makes the conflict going nuclear *more* likely? Where is the logic in that?Notice that these border conflicts involve having a border at issue.
Unless you think Russia is going to do something retarded in regard to Alaska, that doesn't really apply to the US situation.
Then i pity your lack of imagination.I still don't see any scenario in that area, even 50 years out, where the situation requires a US draft to handle.
No, even floating the idea of the draft is something that is a political career killer, and the public has zero taste for anyone who takes the idea seriously anymore.More likely the fact that there was nothing to use the draft for in the meantime.
No, I'm saying a conventional conflicts between nuclear powers that you pointed to are tiffs about territory they themselves want to take and hold.You think not sharing a border makes the conflict going nuclear *more* likely? Where is the logic in that?
It's not lack of imagination, it's understanding how MAD and public sentiment has effectively rendered the Selective Service Act useless as anything but a tool of recruiter and budgetary rhetoric.Then i pity your lack of imagination.
Again, public sentiments change, sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly. Maybe not in 20 years, but can you tell what they will be in 2070? Would you bet on it?No, even floating the idea of the draft is something that is a political career killer, and the public has zero taste for anyone who takes the idea seriously anymore.
The only people who actually take the idea of a draft seriously are recruiters who use it as a fear tactic, or sometime Pentagon heads when they need more funding for said recruiters.
So far. There is absolutely no reason why such conflicts can't happen and not go nuclear. Even if after some proxy allies' territory. The same reasons to not pull out the nukes applies then.No, I'm saying a conventional conflicts between nuclear powers that you pointed to are tiffs about territory they themselves want to take and hold.
Nuking said territory, or each other's deeper territory, would be counter-productive to what those powers want that territory for.
But they can have different factors that come down to the same effect. There is no hard connection between MAD and borders.What I was trying to point out is that the same logic of a 'conventional war' between the US and Russia or the US and CCP doesn't have the same factors involved as those border disputes, nor the same stakes, and the only border the US has with either one is the US/Russia border in Alaska.
Being so sure about your statements on MAD in very muddy areas is proof that you shouldn't be sure about them, and public sentiment, well, it does change.It's not lack of imagination, it's understanding how MAD and public sentiment has effectively rendered the Selective Service Act useless as anything but a tool of recruiter and budgetary rhetoric.
Outbreak of piracy leading to the need for a drastic increase in Navy personnel to crew convoys. There's only so many people who will volunteer themselves a worse livelyhood for everyone else's bottom line, no matter how obvious it is, so long as it stays in the abstraction of the cost of goods.Can either of you present a realistic scenario where a conflict justifies a draft in the US, that doesn't involve conflicts with peer/near-peer nuclear powers?
...that seems unlikely, particularly given that interdicting pirates is much easier to do from the air, rather than the sea, and drones means larges areas can be continuously monitored.Outbreak of piracy leading to the need for a drastic increase in Navy personnel to crew convoys. There's only so many people who will volunteer themselves a worse livelyhood for everyone else's bottom line, no matter how obvious it is, so long as it stays in the abstraction of the cost of goods.
If it gets that bad, I just expect Container ship to mount a nest of Suicide UAVs to go after pirate vessels.Outbreak of piracy leading to the need for a drastic increase in Navy personnel to crew convoys. There's only so many people who will volunteer themselves a worse livelyhood for everyone else's bottom line, no matter how obvious it is, so long as it stays in the abstraction of the cost of goods.
It isn't a matter of needing boots on the ground to kick people's doors in and hold streetcorners, but of having enough hulls in the water to have a hope in Hell of watching out for the fuckhuge container ships.
If it gets that bad, I just expect Container ship to mount a nest of Suicide UAVs to go after pirate vessels.
That implies no fucks given competence from western countries, including governments and a variety of civilian shipping companies....that seems unlikely, particularly given that interdicting pirates is much easier to do from the air, rather than the sea, and drones means larges areas can be continuously monitored.
And if the pirates have enough weaponry to take down drones and aircraft interdiction, then they also have a state sponsor, and we are back to more proxy-war bullshit.
What about a scenario that would lead to more demands for pilots and other positions within the air force for something like an airlift along the lines of the Berlin Airlift?Outbreak of piracy leading to the need for a drastic increase in Navy personnel to crew convoys. There's only so many people who will volunteer themselves a worse livelyhood for everyone else's bottom line, no matter how obvious it is, so long as it stays in the abstraction of the cost of goods.
It isn't a matter of needing boots on the ground to kick people's doors in and hold streetcorners, but of having enough hulls in the water to have a hope in Hell of watching out for the fuckhuge container ships.
There are a boatload of commercial pilots that have military experience, and a fair number of planes in the sky with US Carriers are able to be called to military transport duty if necessary.What about a scenario that would lead to more demands for pilots and other positions within the air force for something like an airlift along the lines of the Berlin Airlift?
I honestly can attest thay the woke problems are mostly in the officer ranks since they have college education.
It is the college corrupting them