This question has always occurred to me whenever I watch television shows about gangs. I think I would support the drafting of gangbangers and prisoners first mainly because, in the case of people in gangs, such people may already have experience in using guns and are easily malleable, two qualities - especially the latter - which the military must find important. Prisoners, those involved in gun crimes, should be drafted first for the same reason. Think about the how much time the military can save by drafting such people. They will not have to train them to use guns (it may still take some time, but not that much compared to a random person), such people are already indoctrinated in hierarchical structures and respect leaders, such people have no qualms with killing, and such people are not afraid of death.

What do you think? Sure this is a widely unfair idea, but it may have benefits.

I wouldn't want to be in combat with gangbangers or prisoners on my side. Maybe send them out front as cannon fodder, but I see no other use for them. Teamwork and trust among soldiers is very important.

The all-voluntary military we currently have works, and last I heard had more volunteers than open slots, there is no reason for them to re-start the draft. But for conversations sake if they were to re-start it, then absolutely not. Few, if any, people who are in the military want the person watching their back to be someone who doesn't want to be there. They want the guy who volunteered knowing what he was getting into, not the one who is forced to be there.

I have a hard time considering someone who may have committed murder just because they can to be someone who should be handed a weapon and a uniform and sent to war. If anything, those are the people who shouldn't be within 20 feet of a firearm.

The problem is that these people often have trouble dealing with authority figures.

Otherwise, it's a brilliant idea.

Yep. They make good front line fodder.

The problem is that they reform into gangs inside, then start causing problems by trying to take over the power structure, or threatening their superiors.

You would literally have to break them first. Break every gang. Break every member. Then reform their pride into something that was directed at something larger and less problematic. Constantly.


At the same time - I'm pretty sure that is what these guys are FOR. Genetically, these guys aren't SUPPOSED to survive very long. They are supposed to be out and die doing something "for the tribe" early. Just alive long enough to breed and die doing their piece. That way they don't need the extra social abilities to get on for very long. No worries about extra problems caused by them in the tribe - they die before they become overly problematic.

In modern times, it doesn't work. They need to have some ability to be decent. When criminals and the criminally insane have run all the militaries in the world, the problems they cause with the local populaces they were in was localized. Now, if they do what they do to a populace - rape, pillage, etc - well, the whole world will take it out on THE COUNTRY they belong to. Which is very damaging. So you need people who can fight and NOT be insane criminals with a licence to be bad.

[edit on 2009/5/29 by Aeons]

Absolutely not!

I am currently in the military, and I have enough to worry about with the enemy IN FRONT OF ME.

I have no desire to have to watch my back in fear of my own 'men'.

Ever.

Not just no, but HELL NO!!!

Originally posted by Aeons
Yep. They make good front line fodder.

The problem is that they reform into gangs inside, then start causing problems by trying to take over the power structure, or threatening their superiors.

You would literally have to break them first. Break every gang. Break every member. Then reform their pride into something that was directed at something larger and less problematic. Constantly.


At the same time - I'm pretty sure that is what these guys are FOR. Genetically, these guys aren't SUPPOSED to survive very long. They are supposed to be out and die doing something "for the tribe" early. Just alive long enough to breed and die doing their piece. That way they don't need the extra social abilities to get on for very long. No worries about extra problems caused by them in the tribe - they die before they become overly problematic.

In modern times, it doesn't work. They need to have some ability to be decent. When criminals and the criminally insane have run all the militaries in the world, the problems they cause with the local populaces they were in was localized. Now, if they do what they do to a populace - rape, pillage, etc - well, the whole world will take it out on THE COUNTRY they belong to. Which is very damaging. So you need people who can fight and NOT be insane criminals with a licence to be bad.

[edit on 2009/5/29 by Aeons]

Wow...you never experience a single moment in the United State Military!

It is obvious with your comment...

I will keep the reset of my comments to myself!

Originally posted by GuiltyByDesign
Absolutely not!

I am currently in the military, and I have enough to worry about with the enemy IN FRONT OF ME.

I have no desire to have to watch my back in fear of my own 'men'.

Ever.

That wouldn't be a significant problem. The bigger problem would be a possible surge in US supplies being "stolen en route" or turning up "missing" as former crack dealers figure out that they can make a small fortune selling to the other side.

Remember, it's the desire for money and power that leads to gang violence -- not pure blood lust.

Yes conscript them for latrine digging duty.

Don't you read the news or watch the TV news gang member don't no how to shoot.

In most gang shootings all they do is pull there guns and blast away.

When the cops investigate they find a large number of empty casing and maybe 1 person shot.

Half of the gang member caught on video doing robberies hold the gun sideways.
And they hardly ever use the sights.

In robberies the only reason they hit someone is that they are standing 3 feet away.

Yes they would make good cannon fodder just put them out front and after the enemy sees them they will be laughing so hard that our regular troops can take them out.

Hmm, I seem to recall reading an FBI Report a couple of years back that determined gang violence using semi-automatic or automatic guns, contrary to popular belief, was actually a non-threat because of their inexperience with the firearms they obtain, and were often drive-by shootings that required a much higher degree of skill in hitting their targets than they actually routinely possessed. Give them military training and we might have a higher fatality rate due to gang violence if and when they return.

Honestly, if we need to enact a Draft, then there is a deeper problem that needs to addressed, and no band-aid solution is going to fix.

If we are fighting numerous simultaneous wars that the majority of people do not feel are justified or serving the better interests of the Nation, and are stretched so thin that those troops already serving there are put in harms way, then what are we still fighting for?

Maybe we should limit ourselves to one concurrent War at at time, instead of fighting on three or four or five or six fronts?

Iraq - check
Afghanistan - check
Pakistan - check
Iran - seriously thinking about it
North Korea - the troops are already on the way
Syria - also seriously thinking about it

If you spread yourself too thin not only do you prove to the world that you can't successfully fight an ill equipped 3rd World Nation (seriously, our ineptitude in Iraq and Afghanistan is only encouraging our enemies, not deterring them!), but you are leaving your homeland unprotected...which personally I think should be Priority Number One!

In this time of Budget Cuts and slashing of Federal Programs, maybe someone should break the news to the Military that they are going to have to make some tough decisions and determine the one or two war efforts they feel most important and be happy with just those instead of asking Congress for more troops to fight yet more wars.

Originally posted by eightonefive
actually you are wrong. I just read that recruiters are committing suicide because they can't make thir monthly quotas.

They have been committing suicide because they are a hero one month and the worst scum on the planet the next based on how many people they enlist. They could have enlisted five people every month for years, way above what is generally expected, and they will still get yelled at for not enlisting more. And heaven forbid they have a bad month and not enlist anyone, you can't even imagine the hell they put up with if they get a zero for the month.

It's the way they are treated by both their superiors as well as the public that causes them to commit suicide, not the job itself.

It's a terrible idea.

Traditionally, conscripted soldiers are unreliable and ineffective.

Volunteers, citizen soldiers - those are the sort of soldiers you want watching your back. Not some gangbanger who got out of doing 25-life by signing up for the armed forces.

A professional military is always more effective than a rag-tag bunch of criminals and slaves.

No... and I will protest ANY conscription. Every man have the right to be free and to fight IF HE WANTS TO.

Otherwise, it's SLAVERY.

Anyway there's enough suckers and unemployed people who will play cannon fodder willingly.

Let them if they want to.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Vitchilo]

Judges have been directing criminals into the military for decades. This is nothing new. In fact, American military was run by criminals for 8 years. There are some decent people in the military but it is loaded with criminals and sheeple.