It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the chances of a Military draft in the US in the next Year?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I think the chances are very good that the Draft will be reinstituted in the USA. The USA will need the extra Men if We are in a War with Iran and North Korea(While still being Militarily involved in Afghanistan and maybe still Iraq). What are Your opinions out there?




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BigDaveJr
 


If we end up in a huge war? Pretty likely.

If not, then no. I think it was the Army that met their recruiting quota for the first time ever this year.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The military doesn't need a draft. They have enough people wanting to join, a lot of whom are being turned away at the door for things they use to be able to join with, that there's no need to draft anyone. There won't be another draft in the foreseeable future.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Since 2002 we have put a Stop-Loss that forces servicemen to tours beyond the dates of their enlistment periods that can force "volunteer" men and women in uniform during war or national emergencies to remain in service until December 24th, 2031.

That means when you signed up for a 2 year enlistment in the Army back in 2000 and later told that Stop-Loss prevents you from going home after those 2 years, then your 2 year enlistment has turned into 9 years and counting.

That means when you signed up for a 6 year enlistment with the Marines in 2000 and later told that Stop-Loss prevents you from going home after those 6 years, then you have already served 2 years above and beyond your enlistment contract.

Supposedly Stop-Loss soldiers are only supposed to be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months beyond their End of Enlisted Duty Date. However, the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. Basically, we are telling our volunteer troops that they have a chance to voluntarily re-enlist and if they don't do it, the Military will keep them in until 2031.

That is the only reason we have enough "volunteer" troops to handle 2, going on 3, 4, or 5 War Campaigns.

Although Congress has had a Draft Bill on the table every session since 2001, it has never even come to a vote and remains tabled indefinitely each session.

Historically speaking, a Republican controlled Congress would be more likely than a Democratic controlled Congress to enact a Draft, and even then most Republicans realize that doing such would amount to political suicide and would only do so as a last resort or in a case where it really was a National Emergency and not a fabricated National Emergency we have in the War on Terror.

Every year the Draft issue pokes up it's head like the Autumn version of the Ground Hog. Every year though it sees its shadow and goes back to sleep.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It's simple really, destroy the economy like Bush and all the rest of the politicians do then the service is the only one offering a job. At that point the country doesn't need the draft. Year after year people still buy into this nonsense.

Tru



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


frst time in 35 years actually



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 
What you refer to as "stop loss" was used during WWII. It's just that we were a little more honest with draftees and enlistees. When you went into the service, it was "for the duration."
There were men in the Navy who didn't even serve a 4 year term, because the war ended a few months after their enlistment.
We need to be that honest with new recruits now.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
Historically speaking, a Republican controlled Congress would be more likely than a Democratic controlled Congress to enact a Draft, and even then most Republicans realize that doing such would amount to political suicide and would only do so as a last resort or in a case where it really was a National Emergency and not a fabricated National Emergency we have in the War on Terror.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's been Democratic senators that have been the ones to talk about a draft in most recent years.

I sort of look forward to a draft in the near future. Can you imagine the uproar from all the hippies that voted for Obama?


Priceless.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
A follow-up Q: what are the odds of the US govt. effectively enforcing any military draft?

On a side note, I think that if the US was threatened with imminent invasion on our soil, then a draft wouldn't even be necessary...we all got guns and know how to use them. A draft for an overseas fight...different story.

If a draft were imposed for an overseas battle and people complied...then that would basically leave our home turf undefended, save for women, children and retirees.

Just my 2-cents

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
Since 2002 we have put a Stop-Loss that forces servicemen to tours beyond the dates of their enlistment periods that can force "volunteer" men and women in uniform during war or national emergencies to remain in service until December 24th, 2031.

That means when you signed up for a 2 year enlistment in the Army back in 2000 and later told that Stop-Loss prevents you from going home after those 2 years, then your 2 year enlistment has turned into 9 years and counting.

That means when you signed up for a 6 year enlistment with the Marines in 2000 and later told that Stop-Loss prevents you from going home after those 6 years, then you have already served 2 years above and beyond your enlistment contract.

Supposedly Stop-Loss soldiers are only supposed to be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months beyond their End of Enlisted Duty Date. However, the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. Basically, we are telling our volunteer troops that they have a chance to voluntarily re-enlist and if they don't do it, the Military will keep them in until 2031.

That is the only reason we have enough "volunteer" troops to handle 2, going on 3, 4, or 5 War Campaigns.

Although Congress has had a Draft Bill on the table every session since 2001, it has never even come to a vote and remains tabled indefinitely each session.

Historically speaking, a Republican controlled Congress would be more likely than a Democratic controlled Congress to enact a Draft, and even then most Republicans realize that doing such would amount to political suicide and would only do so as a last resort or in a case where it really was a National Emergency and not a fabricated National Emergency we have in the War on Terror.

Every year the Draft issue pokes up it's head like the Autumn version of the Ground Hog. Every year though it sees its shadow and goes back to sleep.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by fraterormus]


You are correct, I was in the military but left before they did any of the stop loss. But what they do have is an emergency function in case of National Emergency they could reactivate people that where in the military back into service if they have a special function. They most likely will do it if they need people. What I see happening before even a draft (it would be the democrats more likely than the republicans wanting a draft, but even though the democrats will go with this idea) is an authorization from the president and the congress agreeing to call back prior military people who where in the military in a span of 5 to 10 years. This way it doesn't really effect the regular populace that much and two it gets the rest of americans agreeing because they most likely won't go and two it's looked at as being patriotic for the "recent" soldiers to go back to duty to defend them.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Canada for sure will probably be doing some drafting if there was a huge war. Because of lack of population issues. But one thing for sure is that I hope I won't get drafted. I'll be like, hmmmm. No. Then I'm gonna have to go out of the country because they would put me in jail if I said no.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


Ah close enough. Wasn't the draft ended somewhere in the early 70s?

But they are doing pretty well. No need for a draft, unless we have to take on russia and china at the same time.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


The last draft ended,I believe,in 1971.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Given the timeline the OP suggested, I would say the chances are very close to 0%



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by fraterormus
Historically speaking, a Republican controlled Congress would be more likely than a Democratic controlled Congress to enact a Draft, and even then most Republicans realize that doing such would amount to political suicide and would only do so as a last resort or in a case where it really was a National Emergency and not a fabricated National Emergency we have in the War on Terror.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's been Democratic senators that have been the ones to talk about a draft in most recent years.


Solely Draft Issues like the Universal Military Training and Service Act that would require any U.S. Citizen between the ages of 18 and 34 to be enlisted in the military have been introduced by Republicans in past years (Rep. Nick Smith R-MI, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett R-MD, Rep. Curtis Weldon R-PA.)

However, if you are talking about the Universal National Service Act that would require any U.S. Citizen between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a 15-month period of national service, either as a member of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity, that has been introduced 3 years in a row by the same Democrat from NY (Rep. Charles Rangel D-NY).

Notice the distinction between a Draft and National Service. The Republican one is exclusively for Armed Services, while the Democrat one can be served in either the Armed Services or in a Civil Service.

Still, the last time either was brought up for a vote, in the Democratically controlled Congress even the later only got 2 Votes for compared to 402 Votes against it.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Worked to the Bone that's the American way.

2nd line



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BigDaveJr
 


I have read such claims and topics ever since I have been a member of ATS . As of yet a Draft in the US or elsewhere has not made another appearance . The Vietnam era killed off the draft for good . As I have said to people in the past should the draft be reinstated in the US and other country's the situation would be such that most people would have enlisted already . Here in New Zealand I would be in favour of some kind of National Service that involves the Military , Police , Civil Defence e.t.c . That however is a whole another story .







 
0

log in

join