^ Yes I was given the ASVAB in high school and did pretty well on it as I recall.

Based on the statement in the video and the numbers above, 350,000 individuals wouldn't even qualify for compulsory service.

I don't think Government is the answer. I think getting the Government out of education as much as possible and families focusing more on their children would be more effective.

I think it's a great idea that could be used as an extension of education immediately after high school.

I don't think the general public knows how many different specialities (MOS) are available. Finance, Medics, Electronics, Avionics, Repair for vehicles, Helicopters etc. as well as MPs, CID and the list goes on. All great skills to build on for the future.

I was drafted but fortunately I had already learned enough about printing and graphics arts to receive a designation of CAS (civilian acquired skill) and went to a field printing unit - MOS 83F20

Some folks drafted with me just plain didn't want to be there and it showed, but most of us just accepted the situation and tried to do what needed to be done. I suspect that would be the same today as it was then.

And, Basic Combat Training was probably one of the major events in my life that shaped it from then forward.

Can it help? It can't hoit.

quote:

Originally posted by thunderson:
Not a rebuttal of the idea but something interesting to think about.


[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5-Ur71ZnNVk" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

So 1 in 10 has an IQ in the 80’s?

If this is true, that is the fundamental problem with the educational system.

Efforts to train (teach) those people are counterproductive.

I am for it. Maybe those who refuse to serve will flee to Canada.And we should not allow them back in this time.

I suspect it used to be less of a problem than it is now. There used to be a lot of simple, mindless, repetitive jobs these people could do, especially in factories.

Nowadays, those jobs have largely been automated out of existence. It's getting to the point where unless someone can do work that requires a significant amount of creative intelligence and/or problem solving skills, that person is likely to be completely economically irrelevant, meaning that their labor isn't worth any amount to any employer. And as AI gets better, the automation is going to start displacing people up the intelligence scale.

Okay, this is going way OT. To take it back on topic, this is going to apply to the military. At some point, you basic rifleman is going to get automated. This makes perfect sense. Robots can be both physically tougher and more expendable than humans, they can just be manufactured, and they can just be racked up and stored until actually needed, not trained fed and housed. So over time, the bulk number of military people needed is going to drop (and it has been for other reasons for a while now.) So why would it make sense to draft hordes of soldiers we're never going to need for fighting?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by thunderson:
Not a rebuttal of the idea but something interesting to think about.


[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5-Ur71ZnNVk" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

So 1 in 10 has an IQ in the 80’s?

If this is true, that is the fundamental problem with the educational system.

Efforts to train (teach) those people are counterproductive.

No on compulsory military service. Military doesn't need them and certainly doesn't want them. God bless the volunteer force that serves today.

If we are going to do play around with an idea like this I would prefer something where if you are on government aid or assistance you don't get to vote. You don't contribute you don't get a say.

That may well be, BB (if I cam call you by your first initials).

This brings to mind an incident ~40 years ago. I was back home visiting, and has a chance encounter with a hs classmate, one of the ahhh, dimmer ones, safe to say.

He was glad to see me. It turned out he had a perplexing problem and was embarrassed to bring it up to anyone, but since I was a lawyer, and didn’t live there anymore, maybe he felt “safe.”

Anyway, it turned out he was getting statements from an oil company whose credit card he had been using, the first he had ever had. He showed me a few statements. The more he paid the more it showed under “amount due.” He had quit using the card, but still he paid the statement every month and it was going up. It took only the briefest perusal to see there was a tiny symbol “CR” next to the amount shown in “Amount Due.” He had a growing credit balance, had no idea what “CR” meant. There were a lot of clues other than the symbol there. He didn’t have to pay for gas for quite awhile once we cleared up that detail.

What must life be like for those whose mental and intellectual abilities are so limited?

This would not be involuntary servitude, any more than the obligation to file tax returns and pay taxes is, another obligation of a citizen.

The training might not necessarily be military subjects. The military does the best job, has the most experience, running these training programs introducing discipline, rigor, pressure, details, etc. Only those who chose to do so would continue on in the military.

If it were to be authorized, the resources would have to be available, scaled to the numbers of those participating.

It is, of course, an intrusion on liberty, at least for awhile. Perhaps if participation were voluntary, a distinction would gradually arise between those who had completed it and those who had not, similar to preferences for veterans. Even better would be a cultural advantage, a bit of prestige denied others, like Eagle Scouts only more so.

Misery on many levels. As it is, I have some aptitudinal challenges that my much smarter wife makes up for. I can do thinks she cant' and vice versa. Were I all by my lonesome I'd have to hire help...

I was trained at Fort Ord not only basic, but Advanced Infantry Training. 67-73 I was recruited by OSC and The Green Berets. Weirdly, you had to do better on testing for the G.B.'s than OCS. I passed them both up as I had a pregnant wife at home living with her parents. I rushed home after training to take care of her and the baby and find our own place.

I look back upon those days and think about the 30 year misfit who won't move out of his parents house.

He would've gotten a blanket party just for his weakling attitude. All of us hated weakling, whining pussies. We had few, but a few. They were treated with the contempt they deserved..

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:I think it is good for a young man to have to do things, get up early, make his bed, arrange his belongings, follow a schedule, be uncomfortable under pressure, wear clothes, get haircuts, shine shoes, all imposed by others. Exposure to discipline, responsibility, requirements, consequences, doesn’t hurt anyone in moderation.

I had to do all that from age 11 to 18 at an English public school. After that, joining the Army was a rest and recuperation session that lasted 33 years.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
I had to do all that from age 11 to 18 at an English public school. After that, joining the Army was a rest and recuperation session that lasted 33 years.

Note, for those Americans unfamiliar with the terminology: A "public school" in England is the opposite of a "public school" in America.

An English "public school" is privately funded by tuition paid by the students' families, not by government taxes like an American "public school". They're called "public schools" because they're open to the public (as opposed to something like a religious school) as long as you can afford the tuition, although most do have certain admission criteria.

A privately-funded and led English "public school" would be referred to as a "private school" in America.

An government-funded and led American "public school" would be referred to as a "state school" in England.

Confused yet?

It would be involuntary servitude. However the SCOTUS carved out an exception to the 13th Amendment based on the constitution granting the congress powers to declare war and raise armies.

If the government tried to expand/exploit that loophole for non-warfighting reasons, the courts might very well not go along, since it would be hard to argue that the reasons for the exception made would apply to non-warfighting applications, and that the 13th amendment is still in place.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
This would not be involuntary servitude, any more than the obligation to file tax returns and pay taxes is, another obligation of a citizen.

The training might not necessarily be military subjects. The military does the best job, has the most experience, running these training programs introducing discipline, rigor, pressure, details, etc. Only those who chose to do so would continue on in the military.

If it were to be authorized, the resources would have to be available, scaled to the numbers of those participating.

It is, of course, an intrusion on liberty, at least for awhile. Perhaps if participation were voluntary, a distinction would gradually arise between those who had completed it and those who had not, similar to preferences for veterans. Even better would be a cultural advantage, a bit of prestige denied others, like Eagle Scouts only more so.

FWIW, in the 60s, the percentage of Army Draftees that re-enlisted was higher than the Regular Army first timers. The service was not as bad as the draftees thought it would be, and the enlistees were not as happy. Those numbers are pre-Viet Nam.