U.S. Plans Targeted Draft for Computer Personnel 1212
waytoomuchcoffee writes "The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'. There is already a system in place to draft health care personnel, and this system would be expanded in order to 'rapidly register and draft' computer specialists."
Booyah! (Score:5, Funny)
How is this off-topic? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How is this off-topic? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd imagine not, considering that you are already in the military. There are those of us, balls notwithstanding, that have become accusomed to our current ways of life and would not like to be forced into military service. There are also those among us who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply prefer not to die.
I can not think of any people other than my own for whom I would risk death to secure freedom. Using volunteers for our charity work around the world is all well and good, but I think drafts shold be reserved for actual threats to the nation's security.
Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. (Score:4, Insightful)
> that have become accusomed to our current ways
> of life and would not like to be forced into
> military service. There are also those among us
> who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply
> prefer not to die.
There are two ways to look at it:
1 - Afraid to die/lose your current way of life
2 - Want to kill someone/change your current way of life
Most of the people who join the USMC fall into that second catagory. If their recruiter is even vaugely honest with them (which, I'll admit, is a streach for even the mildest mannered recruiter), they let prospective recruits know that, in the end, it's about killing the enemy dead either by pushing a button, pulling a trigger or by putting your fscking kbar through his heart.
Anyone who forgets that and still thinks military service is a good idea from them should probably join the peace corps and go off to get high with the natives in the next country that the USMC will be visiting shortly.
Personally, I'm with Robert Heinlein: No service, no vote.
Re:Running Scared like all the politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as we understand "service" properly:
Never confuse serving the state with serving your country.
Re:Booyah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Funny)
I remember one of my supervisors telling this little story... he volunteered for the Air Force because he didn't want to get drafted by the Army and sent to some hill in Vietnam with a gun.
So... he became a "communications specialist"... and was put on a hill in Vietnam... without a gun.
Nothing like not having to do "real" combat...
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that's what they told Shoshana Johnson, who thought all she would do was cook in the mess hall. [cnn.com]
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Informative)
That's not necessarily true.
If you'll take a look at fine sites like this one [surfwax.com], this one [buzzflash.com] or possibly this one [oilempire.us], you will see that there is little doubt that should Bush get re-elected, we will have, at least, a limited draft instated by early 2005. If you don't follow the other links, I suggest this one [etherzone.com]. especially if you have a 17-18 year old son OR daughter.
As to the obvious reason that this is going to happen, well you might start looking here [defenselink.mil]; even though the military is basically not letting ANYONE out these days, time up or not, they aren't in my opinion going to be able to meet the numbers due to missed targets.
My word of advice (and I volunteered, was in Gulf War lite, so screw anyone who says I'm not a patriot) is that if you have a boy or girl who are in high school, and they do NOT fully support the policies of the current administration, have them drop out if Bush gets reelected; the current system doesn't take people without high school diplomas, and it'll take them awhile to change the rules.
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm currently a member of the US Air Force. There's currently a program in place not only to let people out, but to let us out AHEAD of schedule. Aparently, for some odd reason, about 2-3 years ago, recruiting went through the roof, and now the Air Force is manned above what it's currently authorized by law. This Force Shaping program is the first stage in getting down to the target manning levels.
They are allowing personel out in almost all career fields, Including computer oriented ones. If this doesn't reduce down to the needed levels, they'll start refusing re-enlistments and forcing retirements. I don't know about the other branches, but round here, people are most definately able to leave.
Re:Booyah! (Score:4, Informative)
Right, that's exactly why they need a DRAFT. Becuase too many of the volunteers are saying "hey, you know what, this is a raw deal" and punching out when their 2 years are up.
It's pretty well established that the numbers in the active service and esp. the reserves are dwindling. Not that I'd expect much else considering how our govt. has reduced veterans benefits tremendously over the past few years.
Re:Booyah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sir.Cracked is right about the force shaping program. In point of fact, it's no secret that the Air Force is having a problem with getting people TO LEAVE. (something about patriotism, job satisfaction, being a part of something bigger than yourself)
We don't WANT a draft, don't NEED a draft, and don't LIKE the draft.
1. Draftees have to be trained like everyone else. Volunteers (by virtue of wanting to be there) tend to learn better than draftees. Since we need specific skillsets, more training is going to be required. (e.g. knowing Arabic does not an intelligence officer make)
2. Draftees only stay for a limited amount of time. With a draft, the AF loses a well-established incentive program that has managed to keep a lot of people with needed skills for a long time. With a draft, we'll have a lot of people for two years, max.
3. The AF has had an all-volunteer force (AVF) for over thirty years. There are but a handful of personnel still on active duty who joined when the draft was still in force. If we go back to a draft, the culture shift would be devastating. Every single policy decision, every strategy has, directly or indirectly, has to consider how it will impact the volunteer force. A draft would be more work than those skills gain.
4. The skills the Selective Service is planning to draft all require careful security screening and trust. These are not areas that draftees would be just dropped into.
5. Why draft when you can contract? Contractors can be found in every aspect of military forces. They're no longer being kept back in the US--they're on the front lines. Easier to buy a ready-made capability than draft it and force it out of the draftees. You draft infantry, not computer techs.
6. The AF is doing pretty well, despite what "experts" on here might think. The Army might be hurting, but I doubt it. Look at the millions being poured into recruiting (airforce.com). The DOD isn't about to abandon this strategy.
My opinions are my own.
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its like the lottery, except when you win you lose. Don't like it? Kick out Bush and his PNAC buddies.
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think the draft is? WHat do you think happened in WWII and vietnam? Do you think people were trained in "facilities to house or train that many new recruits"? Do you live in 2004?
The draft is real, like it or not. The government maintains the selective service specifically so they can draft people immediately when needed. Volumes of poeple, Hundreds of thousands if needed.
You are sadly mistaken if you believe for one second that the US Government has no infrastructure to draft people. It can happen in a heartbeat. It doesn't take "years of planning and building"
It sounds like you are the one with the tinfoil hat on. I think the metal is seeping into your bloodstream and giving you poisoning.
Re:Booyah! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd bet that if Bush wins re-election, he will suddenly find a critical need for a draft. Amazing how the need to get win an election keeps officials from supporting unpopular issues.
Re:Booyah! (Score:4, Informative)
Do you want someone in that state to be at the trigger of a machine gun?
It's a really insidious thing when someone has a low-blood sugar event like that. Because it makes his mind foggy enough that he's not able to tell what's going on, and doesn't see the danger himself. If it's in a social setting, then the first indication that something is wrong is everyone *else* noticing that he's acting really, really out-of-touch with what's going on. It's sometimes really hard to differentiate that fine line between someone just daydreaming and being out of sorts versus someone actually having a medical emergency. In both cases the person himself will assure you that everything is fine.
I was friends for a long time with someone with strong diabetes. It was uncomfortable being in that position of having to decide whether or not to get forceful and heavy-handed about *making* him have to eat something - it's socially unpleasant to make a mistake and get that forceful when it turns out there was nothing wrong, so often I would end up having to wait to see if it got any worse before taking action.
Re:Booyah! (Score:4, Funny)
All I know about Bush and Clinton is that I had the same shitty job during both presidencies. I think they might both be assholes.
Re:Booyah! (Score:5, Funny)
never too late... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:never too late... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:never too late... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm continually astonished that people who will object to environmental regulation, "because it violates my property rights", will at the same time support the notion of the draft. Working to abolish the draft, in all forms, sounds like my patriotic duty. Blind support of the government, and forcing others to die for, and to kill for, policy they disagree with hardly sounds like serving *my* country. Maybe you live in a dictatorship, but I live in the USA.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Senator Carl Schurz -- February 29, 1872. That's patriotism. The word for what you are endorsing is "jingoism" [wikipedia.org]. I prefer patriotism, it takes more thought, and requires more bravery.
Re:never too late... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:never too late... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:never too late... (Score:4, Interesting)
I also disagree from the "move to Canada" argument -- but only because it is a typical "if you don't like it, then leave" answer to fixing fundamental problems with what America is and has been doing.
I am completely opposed to your world view, Shakrai -- mostly because I feel you have bought into a whole pack of lies and propaganda about America and our role and moral high ground with our actions.
I believe that most "crises" that America has faced recently and ones we will face in the so-called "War" on terrorism are almost entirely caused by the actions of our own military and political leaders. Asking US citizens to partake and support these actions put most people with a broad context understanding of what is really going on globally in a very difficult situation.
Leaving does not help in the big picture. However, it does remove the individual from the dilemma of personal conflict. People do not leave because they are cowards -- they realize that the US system gives then NO VOICE in what is happening and they realize that they are being used to ends far beyond their control. They also realize that by staying they have almost no ability to change the situation significantly enough to change its effect on their own lives or their loved ones and children.
The draft never stopped a war! (Score:5, Insightful)
The draft is slavery. I am a veteran, and I proudly volunteered. But if they were to show up claiming they had a right to my life and time - I'd go to jail first.
Re:never too late... (Score:5, Informative)
I was in the military and I'm 100% against the draft. The only point of a draft in this day and age is to avoid paying a fair market value for the labor. The whole point of this nonsence is to avoid increasing taxes. Here's some food for thought, quoted from a statement by congressman Ron Paul (Republican): [house.gov]
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: " Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."
Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: "...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.
You're all safe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're all safe (Score:5, Informative)
While this has been the case with large IT groups within large governmental organizations in the past, this is starting to change within certain groups like subsets of the Department of Homeland Security and groups within the FBI and CIA. A number of those folks are going to other platforms like OS X for security reasons, convenience, management and hardware infrastructure like Altivec which can speed up cryptography significantly. Of course some of the older guys know Nextstep quite well and were fans of the NeXT boxes when they were de-rigeur at the NSA and places in the CIA and are quite happy with OS X.
Linux has also made big strides in places, particularly the TRUSTED flavors.
Re:You're all safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! (Score:5, Funny)
Better go out and start writing my e-mail with Outlook Express! That will immediately prove I am not a computer specialist
Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woah! I better prevent myself from the draft! (Score:5, Funny)
sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sure, why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sure, why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Conscription is logically equivalent to slavery. Consider yourself lucky if you get minimum wage, most of the plans to draft unskilled troops won't even give them that much.
Re:sure, why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, below market, but it depends on your definition of "far." They won't be paying you any less than those of equivalent rank--for a university graduate level specialty it's going to mean at least a warrant officer's billet--looking at the military pay scale (at least for 2002) that's around $25k/yr, a lot more than minimum wage. A general draft for E-1s pays them (again in 2002) $13272/yr, again more than minimum wage. You aren't going to starve.
You mean because you can't opt out of it? I don't think this is equivalent to slavery. As citizens, there are several obligations we have to the government, some of them onerous: like taxes. This is just one of them--a particularly onerous one--but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery.
Re:sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Conscription is forced labor.
Yeah, that's a real stretch of a comparison.
Re:sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If these people didn't already have a "trained career path" they wouldn't be subject to this draft, and if the pay and benefits were really so great they could fill the position without putting a gun to anybody's head.
This is forced labor... no matter how sugar-coated it is, that's slavery.
Re:sure, why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask then, just how much of a "free society" it is when people are forced to work for it against their will.
Then ask how much of a "free society" it is if people are forced to pay for it against their will.
The key here is not that taxation justifies conscription, its that conscriptions provides an extreme example of just how wrong taxation was/is in the first place.
Re:sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Voluntary military service can be thought of as the ultimate form of democracy: can't get enough people to volunteer to fight your war? Too bad, guess you can't fight it then. I can't see how forcing me to kill for a cause I disagree with is anything but slavery.
Taxes are a different deal, mainly in that they don't force me to kill, or force me to risk my life. I may disagree with how my tax dollars are spent, but as a civilian I still have all my rights and can aggitate for change. A soldier can, quite legally, be punished for disagreeing with government policy (this is why you no longer see non-anonymous interviews with soldiers who disagree with the Bush Government's policy. The first few who did so non-anonymously suffered retribution). A civilian can protest, write nasty letters, run for office against the politician who is spending his money, etc. A soldier can do none of those things. The draft is not equivilant to paying taxes.
I thought (Score:5, Funny)
Next up: Outsourcing missile control to China...
But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
They check your slashdot user ID number. If it's low enough, you're in. Just like the old draft lottery in the 70's.
There are worse things, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are worse things, I guess (Score:5, Informative)
I thought I had made out great but shortly after my training was complete they changed all the rules and any programmer not actually programming day to day was instantly an operator. Since at that time the policy was to buy all new software off the shelf I wasn't programming (shell scripts don't count).
The point is that you can't count on anything once you are in. The rules change day to day and moment to moment. Also a lot of people in the "safe" Saudi cities away from the front died in the first Gulf war due to Scuds.
Finally, considering the amount of hi-tech equipment becoming standard, a programmer might find himself in a tent in Syria doing maintenance on a Tank or in the jungle in the Philipines fixing a soldiers heads up display.
wow (Score:3, Funny)
note to kids at home- don't post on slashdot while you are on the phone
(sorry)
Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The draft in its present form is also very unconstitutional because it discrimates between men and women. In this day and age, that makes it a political untouchable. To require women to register will spark protests, but to not require them to do so would lead to court injunctions halting the draft process.
Congresspeople also have learned something from the Vietnam war. If a war is so unpopular that we are out of "weekend warrior" reserves and we can't convince people to join on their own, as a politician you should be voting to force a withdrawl rather allow the war to continue. To be depleted to the point that a draft is needed in modern times is a sign that we've already lost and just can't admit it.
The only people in Congress who called for a draft during recent years have been those who oppose the president's military plans. By rolling out a draft, or even raising the possiblity of a draft, a war effort suddenly becomes less popular.
Bottom line... the Selective Service exists only as a tool to be used in a doomsday situation, just like all of the city fallout shelters that were built in the USA during the cold war to be prepared for a nuclear bomb that never came. I'd consider anything new we hear from the Selective Service to be a rarely-used bureaucracy trying to justify its existance because in tight budgets, cutting the Selective Service's staff is always a low-pain cut.
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't eat the seed corn (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if you let all of your young college students go off and enlist, where exactly are you expecting to get your next generation of officer corp in the event the war is protracted? If you put rifles in the hands of engineers and others who are keeping your industrial machinery (which you need to prosecute the war) running how exactly are you going to continue to be able to fight?
Look at the experience of Britain in WWI. All of their young idealistic college students dropped out and enlisted. When the war dragged on they discovered they'd eaten the seed corn. They'd thrown their best human resources away as grunts on the front lines early in the war.
Re:Bingo! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everyone has the option to take up another citizenship. Some people are shit out of luck in that department. Though I think I would enjoy my time in prison for refusing a draft; that's the most honorable way out of a compulsary service requirement. No one can accuse you of joining the national guard to get out of a draft if you spend a few years in the hole for your country. There is simply no other way to emerge from a period of unjust war with your honor completely intact. You can try to repair it after serving in the military like Kerry did, but that's just window dressing. Every innocent man, woman and child your service killed will never come back. You have to refuse service and refuse taxes and do your jail time for it, until your country is out of the mess, if you want to be able to say you are a patriot without further dishonoring yourself with a lie.
Not that I'm much for nationalism these days, I would go 'hiking in Maine' long before my number came up.
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamentals have not changed between WW2 and now, and a draft was certainly needed to prosecute that "good war". While other parts of your comment may indeed be "insightful", this part most certainly is not. There's no reason to think that every war worth fighting can be fought with volunteers.
If the US is ever again drawn into a conflict as large-scale as WW2 was, be sure that a draft will be put in place. This will not be a sign that we've "already lost", but rather a sign that we are willing to do what it takes to win.
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest lesson of every military conflict since the first Gulf War is that manpower is almost irrelevant in the face of technology. Remember, in 1991, Iraq had one of the largest and most battle-experienced armies in the middle East. Yet they got spanked by a much smaller force of tecnologically superior Americans.
The 1999 war between NATO and Yugoslavia even put an end to the conventional wisdom that invasion by ground forces is required for victory.
In fact the trend in warfare is to involve as few humans as possible. The second Iraq war was the first large-scale use of unmanned drones in combat; some suggest that the current F-22 will be the last manned fighter jet, and that in the future all military aircraft will be robotic.
I can imagine a future hypothetical conflict between large, technologically equal adversaries, fought entirely by unmanned vehicles over land, sea, and air. Whichever side's unmanned vehicles ran out first would likely be forced to surrender, given the alternative of certain and pointless death for any human sent to combat the machines.
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
It also takes an act of congress to declare war. declarations of war were probably originally intended to be used only in doomsday situations as well. Now we now that the concept of war has been perverted and twisted so that while our politicians claim to wage a successful war, they have also carefully made sure that war was never declared, bypassing the checks and balances that you originally suggested will protect us from the draft.
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody's going to revive the draft. [salon.com]
Just like nobody's going support Patriot II. [wired.com]
I mean, this is America. That can't happen here
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's true that Clinton downsized the military, blaming him for having to call up the Reserves and Guard is silly--or have you forgotten Desert Storm?
The simple fact is that we've ALWAYS relied on non-regulars when it comes time to fight a real war. In EVERY major war the US has fought, the bulk of its forces have been made up of reservists, guardsman, draftees, militia, whatever, and not regular military.
Re:Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:4, Informative)
While some combat roles may be still banned to women (as in, I'm not sure whether this is the case), others are definitely not. As of 1991, the Navy lifted this ban with respect to air combat. I suspect all of the military branches, allow women to engage in combat in at least this capacity, since I know that there were combat helicopter units with female members way back in Gulf War I.
I'm sure that lawsuits would be filed if the draft was re-instituted again, and I'm not sure that the ruling would not be changed.
Frankly, I think that women should either face the same possibility of a draft that men do, or be faced with losing the ability to vote. If a woman wants be an 1800s-style protected housewife instead of a full member of society, fine, but neither should she be accorded the privileges of said member of society.
Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:4, Insightful)
What's a guy make with a freshly-minted bachellaureate in computer science make, working for the military? Where do most of them end up, both in geographical and task-related terms? How much control over where they put you does a new officer have?
Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:3, Funny)
About 7 bucks an hour at the local Wal-Mart
Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:4, Interesting)
That's still not very good. If you add $27,000 to what I pay for housing/electricity/water, you get about what I was making as a help desk phone jockey when I started out in IT four years ago, with no degree.
The military can probably get away with lower-than-industry pay for certain jobs that have a cool factor, like flying a fighter jet or driving a tank, but not for an IT position.
Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not like most of the people here have any moral objection to being complicit in murder.
Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the Department of Treasury on their
Looking at the yearly figures for public debt, it never experienced a drop during Clinton's administration, in fact over the term of his presidncy it increased by $2 trillion. Granted it has increased a little faster under Bush, at $1.4 trillion, but I am not seeing this magic 10 trillion surplus.
Now, one possibility is that instead of paying down the debt with the surplus it was spent elsewhere with a little extra debt thrown in (in less than a year), but then, considering who was in office at the time, this would not be surprising nor would it be Bush's fault.
Also, generally plural usage of a word denotes multiple occurences. Saying "running 1/2 trillion dollar deficits " with the implication that we have been running deficits of this size is only true if we round up, sometimes by quite a bit.
Next: I was unaware that Bush has been in office for 10 years, and generally re-elections are for 4 years not 5.
Heh. heh. Ok, so you are saying he has done nothing on these few points or has at most only played to the public eye, then you continue to basically blame American citizens for not making intelligent decisions, etc.
So in essence, things aren't going your way and it is everyone elses fault? So sorry, next time we will all sit around and let you make our decisions for us, rather than try to think for ourselves...right after we stop looking up information from the source, like looking at the US treasury dept for public debt information.
I'm not supporting the 1.4 trillion increase in public debt or the current president. I think there are more than enough real issues (backed by real numbers) to talk about without dreaming up new ones...
Re:Related Question: Benefits of Voluntary Service (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a direct translation from tax cuts = jobs. When businesses get a tax cut it all doesn't re-enter the economy. When the government takes in money it is spent (actually Bush spent an extra 500 billion this year). Which do you think will help the economy more 100% spending or something less.
Granted simple economics and math elude most people but the "businesses create more jobs" bullshit is getting old. I guess you forgot that businesses hired people when Clinton was in office and taxes were supposedly high.
Oh, great.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it is stuff like this that is going to make anonymity much more important than it is now. The problem of course is that unless you are completely disenfranchised from society your academic records are known, any published writing you have is known, your credit rating is known (believe it or not, certain government agencies look very carefully at your credit rating when recruiting you), and "virtual" persona are relatively easy to correlate with specific persons (all of you anonymous cowards take note). And all you folks that think: "Well, my Ph.D. or M.D. is going to keep me out of the draft", take note. If you are under the age of 45, we are prime candidates.
Re:Oh, great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think perhaps we've swung a little too far into paranoia because so few Americans currently serve in the armed forces. I am a captain in the army reserves, and I get the strangest questions from people who have NO idea what being in the military is like. This wasn't true during my parent's generation.
What I'm saying is this: if we want war and an uncertain future, the best way to achieve this is to not serve, to not care, and to put the power to control such decisions in an increasingly smaller and smaller circle of "good ol' boys."
Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.
Now, first things first, we need to get a new fire captain soon... he keeps saying to us, can of gasoline in hand, that, "I'll have some work for you guys in a sec."
This reminds me... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am going into a computer engineering major at UMBC. I was approached by recruiters, and they wanted me to do ROTC. I didn't want to, because if I was going to a good college, I wasn't going to negate the benefits by being stuck in the military for 5 years afterwards. Now again, this could potentially ruin my plans for after school. I will have to vote for a candidate who will try to keep us out of any major wars that would require a draft.
Disclaimer: I am from a military family, I have nothing against the military, but I personnally don't want to join.
Count me in ! (Score:4, Funny)
Will.. (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing new... (Score:3, Interesting)
This has been going on in Israel for decades. As a result, Isreal has produced some of the best computer programmer's in the world. Most of the developers end up in VERY high paying jobs once they are released from military duty.
Of course, if you don't like the draft, you could always migrate to India India [mithuro.com].
Freedom comes at a price (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom comes at a price (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freedom comes at a price (Score:5, Insightful)
I am the country -- I and 300 million other Americans. The country is not some capricious god that we dump offerings on.
When you can clearly demonstrate to me how blowing up chunks of Iraq has significantly benefitted We The People, then I'll happily join up.
A draft takes place when people don't care about something enough to want to risk dying for it, but do want to force someone else (who feels the same way) to do something about it. Since there are a number of ways of avoiding the draft, and since money and political influence played a role in avoiding Vietnam, I would say that a draft is a stunningly divisive and politically unsound way of achieving that goal.
If there were a horde of Bush's stereotypical black-swathed turban-wearning terrorists mowing down innocent people outside my front door, would I shoot back and risk my life? I'd at least give it serious consideration. That's a cause that's worth fighting for. Attacking a bunch of Iraqis for political goals that are at best extremely unclear and perhaps poorly chosen, and at worst downright corrupt and evil is not something that I am interested in dying for. Frankly, given a choice between firing a shot at either Ashcroft or a random Iraqi citizen, I can tell you right now who I'd be aiming at.
While I don't want to be drafted to fight in Iraq, also I don't feel that anyone else should be drafted to fight there. As a matter of fact, I feel very strongly that we should not be involved in Iraq at all. I think that US actions in Iraq have caused political and social repercussions that hurt the United States more than help it. So, no. I would not be "fighting for the the country", I would be fighting against it.
A much better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Contingency plan? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the past 10 years, computer specialists in the military were offered large retention bonuses to stay in the military and reenlist. Now those bonuses aren't to be seen. I know from experience.
So why isn't the military trying harder to retain these already military trained computer specialists but supposedly drawing up a draft? Something doesn't jive here.
real deal on selective service bill (Score:4, Interesting)
I forgot the bill numbers. My little sister did a paper on it for her highschool government class. I'll stake my life and reputation that it's true, though. The bills have been in the works since early in 2003 and the schedual is to bring them into effect in 2005.
S.89 and HR.163 are the bills (Score:5, Informative)
For HR.163, go here [loc.gov] and type hr 163 into the "Bill Number" field.
All right you little maggots! (Score:5, Funny)
Method already in place (Score:5, Interesting)
Equal Oppertunity! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'.
Would this include women?
Years ago in high school, a female friend once angrily declared the draft "sucked". I looked her straight in the face and said "What do you care?" "Huh?" "You' can't be drafted, only men can be." This was apparently a major revelation, and shockingly, the draft was forgotten about almost immediately.
Main theories I've heard are that a)"our nation's daughters" coming home in body bags during a war would be political suicide, and b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men". Oh, then there's c)"women would use their feminine wiles to distract the men busy fighting!"
Ever notice how feminists just really aren't torn up about any of that, even though most of it is deeply sexist? Also notice how Jessica Lynch was supposedly(according to the Army) beaten, raped, tortured, etc- when all evidence(and her own comments, before she developed permanent amnesia of events) point to all her injuries coming from the car accident she was in, and that Iraqi doctors took exemplary care of her? It's like the Army was saying "look, this is why you don't want women in the military! They're brave but helpless, and can get RAPED! Isn't she cute? She could be YOUR daughter!"
This is Dubya's revenge (Score:5, Funny)
I knew it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I was always dubious of doing this, becuase if there were ever a "crisis" and they REALLY needed someone with my skills, I foresaw the "volunteer oppurtunity" becoming an "involuntary recall to active duty" in a heartbeat.
I doubt this decision is directly related, but now they have a massive database of skills that they can search through and draft from first.
Amateur Radio (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on (Score:4, Funny)
How will they find us? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps they'll surf Monster.com for resumes.
I'll move to Canada... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, I'd rather put effort into improving infrastructure than destroying it. Give every Iraq cable TV and start a bunch of McDonalds and they'll be too lazy and fat like us Americans to give a shit about their government.
The Draft is coming ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now class, can anyone tell me why there would be such a large, quite push to restaff so quickly? Mark my words, the draft will be back.
Here's my guesses:
1. If something goes really wrong this summer in Iraq or Afghanistan (like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam) then they will quickly draft and deploy before the November elections.
2. If Bush is reelected then the draft will start Jan or Feb 2005, slow for the first few months and then when they are up to speed they'll start pulling large amounts of young men.
3. If Kerry is elected I can't guess what he would do. I don't if there would be a major difference.
Watch how the US Govt handles draft, induction, training and deployment this time. You'll see companies created that go through boot together, post recruit train together, deploy together, what's left of them will get discharged together and the company disbanded. No more singles in, singles out. This is much more like WWII than Korea or Vietnam.
If you are 14 - 20 years old then I'd seriously start making plans on what you'll do. Speaking as someone who toted a 16 for his uncle I'd recommend not going at any cost. We use to say "the only thing worst than cleaning a body bag is being in one". As a parent I would do whatever it took to keep my son away from any unjust and immoral war like that clusterfuck going on in the Mid East.
As Frank Zappa once said: "What they do in Washington is take care of number one and number one ain't you. You ain't even number two."
I am willing to bet you $1000 you are wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to wager cold, hard cash that your paranoid liberal view of the world is rooted in fact rather than delusion? I've even given you four months longer than you're "sure" the draft will be reinstated. Or are you all just talk?
I was an Army linguist. (Score:5, Interesting)
And my unit spent most of its time in the motor pool, or in the field, digging in the dirt. Not once did I train to perform a mission as a linguist with my unit while I was in uniform, because officers can't lead soldiers who aren't in the field. It doesn't get them promoted, so they uniformly oppose it. Every bit of funding for every linguist mission was cut, and the mandatory eight hours of language maintenance required for all linguists was gradually reduced to no maintenance at all.
The only time I was actually useful was while on TDY.
Any assertion that the military needs people in these specialties is not true. They had them, indeed have them, and I can pick up the phone right now, call the RSDNCO of my former unit, and ask what they will be doing on Monday. I am confident that the answer will be: "motor pool".
This is something that has been brewing since before the Kennedy Report, and it still pisses me off, especially in light of all the back-pedalling from the FBI and military that they "don't have the resources". They did have them. Due to mismanagement and fucked-up priorities (primarily the OER system), they couldn't keep them. My re-enlistment counseling with my commanding officer (whom I respected a great deal) was, "well I can offer you the Army nurse program, or physician's assistant, but unless you want to become an officer, you won't be able to transfer out of your MOS because it's short".
During my time in the military, I think about one in three linguists re-enlisted, always for choice of duty station. I cannot count the number of linguists that disappeared, that training wasted, because they spent four (or more) years doing nothing. If they left the military under good terms, they should have been actively pursued by the FBI or NSA so that training wouldn't have been wasted. But it wasn't a priority until 9/11. Then, all those three-letter agencies suddenly realized that they'd better come up with effective damage control fast, so they settled on: "we don't have the resources."
It's a lie.
Your government promises full employment! (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks to the economic benefits of imperial war, you can soon return to the jobs that major US corporations regrettably had to ship overseas to boost their CEOs' and shareholders' profits. Those profits simply were not high enough after a decade of record earnings! Now that our economy is unable to provide jobs, we will create jobs by fighting for, er, freedom!
Outsourcing was a painful lesson; we understand. But with our exciting new insourcing, you'll be right back doing what you're used to - writing software, patching Microsoft technology, and answering basic user questions (but politely this time, or we'll have to mercilessly beat you, ha ha!). Heck, we'll even throw in room and board. Can Starbucks give you that?
Now, you're asking: O Mighty and Glorious Leader Bush, what do I have to do to make myself more deserving? At ease, citizen. Remember: the Enemy is everywhere, and he has no respect for frequent backups or the single-OS monopoly that is the foundation of our free society. Keep your shoes shined and your trap shut, and we'll be in touch when the time comes to fight for the CEOs!
This is my distro (Score:5, Funny)
RTFA: This is a pure "What if" role-playing (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes clear that the "U.S. Plans Targeted Draft for Computer Personnel" headline is pure scaremongering. No one is about to get drafted. This is not "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming" for those of you trapped in the 1970s. This is deep, long-range contingency planning by a government agency that needs to look busy to keep their funding from being cut.
Too many people seem to be ignorant of the difference between "contingent" and "imminent." Just because, say, for example, FEMA updates its plans on recovering from a nuclear war DOESN'T MEAN we're planning to launch a nuclear war. Likewise, that whole "Pentagon plans for possibility of global climate change" had nothing to do with them planning for what they thought was going to happen, but everything to do with laying in contingency plans for what MIGHT happen, just like we had "rainbow" plans before World War II as to what we might have to do if involved in a global war against various enemies; just because we made plans for a global war against England, Russia and China (as well as Japan and Germany) didn't mean such an event was likely.
Will anyone here on Slashdot be called up? If, say, al Queda or North Korea nukes DC or Los Angeles, maybe. Otherwise all this talk is a bunch of blather from people who like to over-react anytime anyone in the Bush administration mentions the words "national security" and "computers" in the same sentence.
Re:20 to 44? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but this isn't a general draft. The conscripts will be coding, not fighting. You don't need to be particularly fit to do that ;)
And yes, what is next IS the general draft. They have already hired all the required personel for the local draft boards. Spent $28 million to get the draft ready to begin no later than June 15th, 2005. What's that? They need congressional approval? Read Bills S 89 and HR 163. They would have been in the news, but they had just caught Saddam so it never made the cut...
It's not the entire country, though. Just able bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 26...unless they've change that range. And yes, it is co-ed now ;) And if you are a student, or a farmer...you arn't excluded this time. If you want a drivers licence, or if you attended public school, you are already registered. Although if they got your name, address, and phone number from your school, you had the opportunety for your parents to opt you out, but the schools are not required to inform you of that option, or even that they are giving your information to the government. If schools do not comply, they lose government funding.
And as for "for their entire life" no, just 30 years. You see, many of the troops, reserves, and National Guard in Iraq (est 43%) are not planning to reenlist. Unfortunatly, they have been "stop gapped" back into service anyways; many of them whose tours were supposed to end in 2003 or 2004 have found they NOW end in 2030. And yes, the war will still be going on in 2030. Bush himself has said he expects The War on Terror to drag on for several more decades at the minimum. I mean, they have only toppled 2 nations so far, and they still have Iran, Libya and Syria to topple, not to mention North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on.
I do not think NEED means what you think it means. (Score:4, Insightful)