Automatic registration for US Military draft to begin in December

Post by esseph » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 6:51 AM UTC

Markoff wrote: post #59

fiddeert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a problem that money can solve. If you think it is, it's over. It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation. Recognise that young men have nothing worth fighting for now. There is a much larger issue that can't be solved by throwing a few more shekels at disillusioned mercenaries.

> It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation. I would say WW2 was pretty long time ago, none of the latter US wars was about thing you mention, everyone serving in following wars were not soldiers but mercenaries. Btw. why you need army to defend your own family? Also your family is more likely to be hurt by your fellow citizen than…

Post by jayemar » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 2:08 PM UTC

jagged-chisel wrote: post #18

gowld wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you wrote has nothing to do with the article. The draft is for (a) massively unpopular wars that the public won't consent to (b) existential wars that require huge manpower. It's for cannon fodder; not at all for "smart", "qualified" people.

Not to mention, in the event of required increase in personnel, why "pay to entice" when you can "legally compel" without needing to pay more to the plebs?

Post by zelias » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

whattheheckheck wrote: post #42

ks2048 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more history I learn, the more I see how big of a role mercenaries played in wars of the past.

In Game of Thrones (A Clash of Kings), Lord Varys poses a riddle to Tyrion Lannister involving three men—a king, a priest, and a rich man—each commanding a sellsword to kill the other two based on their respective sources of authority: law, gods, or gold. The riddle asks, "Who lives and who dies?" with the answer being that the sellsword decides, as he holds the physical power of life and death. Varys reveals that po…

Post by red-iron-pine » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 8:29 PM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #35

linkregister wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This selective service policy change is unrelated to any prospective or ongoing military operations. Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Officers have accepted comparably low pay for the history of the U.S. armed services. Cited reasons include prestige, networking opportunities, and as a distant third, sense of duty to nation.

> Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Citation heavily needed. When I was a junior non-com, my civilian colleagues made way more than I did, even including the (quite nice) military benefits, even when ignoring the fact that 80 hour workweeks are commonplace on deployment.

Post by red-iron-pine » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 8:34 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #16

frugalmail wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- The US has had record breaking recruitment in the last 1.5 years. - This policy is a readiness, not an activation. It's not related to current recruitment. Traditionally the US believes arming the people (2nd Amendment) means we're a stronger nation. Having bases globally makes us a stronger nation. Having everybody registered to the draft makes us a stronger nation.

The big problem is that having a demented and kompromised "president" whose handlers launch ill-advised unwinnable wars that give away needless victories to our adversaries makes us a weaker nation.