Women May Have to Register for the Draft as Men's Group Wins Selective Service Lawsuit

No exactly sure how this has anything to do with my post. All of the volunteers joined pre-1942 when the War Department stopped accepting volunteers.

 

And the majority of those who served were draftee: 61.2%

 

Yes, I'm aware. Millions of men were drafted post-1941, while at the same time the military stopped accepting volunteers.

 

US MILITARY PERSONNEL (1939-1945)

Year Army Navy Marines Coast Guard Total
1939 189,839 125,202 19,432 334,473
1940 269,023 160,997 28,345 458,365
1941 1,462,315 284,427 54,359 1,801,101
1942 3,075,608 640,570 142,613 56,716* 3,915,507
1943 6,994,472 1,741,750 308,523 151,167 9,195,912
1944 7,994,750 2,981,365 475,604 171,749 11,623,468
1945 8,267,958 3,380,817 474,680 85,783 12,209,238

The majority of the army was drafted after 1941. You had a pathetic army prior to your entry into the war in 1941 in raw numbers.
So the fact is, that of those who served during WW2 over 60% were drafted. You'er wrong.

 

So, now that women will have to sign up for selective service, I suppose we can eliminate the all volunteer stuff and just start using the draft again... right? Ladies? Up for that?

 

I really don't understand why you keep posting stuff that is confirming exactly what I am saying. Is the problem that you don't understand my argument at all?

 

You're the one not understanding the numbers and what people have been telling you. In WW2 the majority of men, 61,2%, serving were draftee, not volunteers.

 

No ****. Not once have I argued that point. My point is that the War Department had volunteers lined up around the block of recruiting centers and was turning them away, eventually not accepting volunteers entirely, because the draft was more convenient, not because they couldn't get enough volunteers.

I would further argue that having a Draftee Army meant that the "leadership" of the military didn't have to worry about casualties affecting recruitment, which let them use idiotic weapons, tactics, and battleplans even though they were downright criminal (Tanks running on explosive gasoline engines - I'm looking at you).

 

You can't based your long term startegy on voluntarism. You have to be able to set goal and meet them which mean removing the "volonteer" aspect of it and making it mandatory for everybody. In peace time you can afford a volunteer army. In a major conflict not so much.

 

Your argument would have value if the US wasn't drowning in volunteers post-Pearl Harbor. Enslaving people because its more convenient is not a winning argument.

 

It wasn't slavery! A guy in basic figured we got around 23 cent an hour dividing monthly pay by hours worked. Some prisons paid inmates better, but everybody in the military got paid every month! They said if you stayed six years and made promotions you would begin to feel human again.

The deprivation during the first few years really did make you want to kill people.

 

And slaves on plantations sometimes got paid too. Doesn't change the fact that they were slaves. Being forced to work at gunpoint is slavery.

 

Not so. They always said nobody held a gun on you when you raised your right hand.

 

So if you refused to fight/serve you would not be punished by government (whose power is always at the point of a gun)?

 

2 birds, 1 stone.... Mandatory 2 year service for all 18-20 and hey, you qualify for the GI bill. Bernie would be ecstatic! Cures our need for a draft as well!

 

I have facts and numbers... You have your opinions...

 

Your numbers don't interfere with anything I've said. In fact, they support exactly what I've said.

 

No they pretty much destroy your point. The majority were drafted. You wouldn't have been able plan strategically or logistically if you can't count on a predictable number of replacement effectives. You don't know how much will volunteer month to month, but you sure as hell know how much you'll draft.

 

I. Never. Argued. The. Majority. Were. Volunteers.

 

You said the draft wasn't needed. It was, you can't plan a war on unpredictable recruitment.

 

Except that's exactly what's been done with every war in US history since the 1970's.

 

Yeah, regional and quite limited theater of operation against 3rd world opponents. Try this against russia or china and we'll see.

 

In 1991, the US fought the 3rd largest military in the world with forces comparable in numbers to Imperial Japan and who had more tanks than Hitler dreamed of having at one time. And we didn't have or reintroduce the draft.

 

LOL! Iraq was only that on paper. They had manually cranked turret on their T72 and most of their airforce that wasn't destroyed in the first hours, flew and surrendered to Iran. No navy either and beside the republican guard, they didn't even know which end of their AKs was the dangerous side...

Go back playing world of tank.

 

And the Japanese were using knock-offs of WW1 era tanks in 1944 while the Germans entire operational logistic network relied on horses.