[mike777]

As usual you seem to fail to read my posts.. see my early one where I pointed out these things that you repeat. I commented on the later anti draft ones not yours Richard which was an early one.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 17 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

Geez reading these latest anti draft comments I can see why Bin Laden thinks the way he does. Why not fight the West, they may not fight back with anything long term.

Mike, I fail to follow the logic here. What is there about believing that the draft creates a less efficient military that would embolden bin Laden? (BTW, is he even still alive?).

What is there about a small minority of Islamics to be so fearful of that one must charge around the world trying to eliminate them? Do you really accept that the fraction of Islam that is militant is of any real threat to the U.S. - and not just random terror attacks but a genuine threat to U.S. existence?

I can only speak for myself, but for me as a kid growing up the U.S. was a place I believed in and could trust the leaders of the country to only engage us in wars of serious consequence, ones that could alter the world map and truly threaten the freedom of our nation.

But then J.F.K. was killed, and Bobby, and Johnson created the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we began to pour draftees into Vietnam - and slowly, we began to see that there was no good reason to be there, and that led to an incredible polarization of this nation to the extent that the National Guard shot down protestors at Kent State - this seemed to many of us as if it was the State against the will of the people. The ones who supported the war were not killed.

Then we had Nixon and Watergate, "Peace is at hand," from Kissinger ad nauseum, and in the end we found that the nation we believed in as children no longer existed. We could not trust our leaders. We became cynics.

Justin is a great example. Here is a young man who decided college wasn't for him. He has great talent and drive and thus took off on a the road to become a bridge professional - if he had been in my shoes in 1969, he wouldn't have had that option. If we had those same options today, his choices would have been go to Baghdad, go to Canada, go to jail, or go to college and hope the war ended before you get out of school.

Yes, that is the freedom of choice that has been fought for by brave men who paid dearly - but I refuse to accept that that dear price was necessary in Vietnmam, Afghanistan, or In Iraq.

Terrorism is the concern of intelligence and police - more people have been killed in the U.S. in the past 30 years by ingesting peanuts than by terrorist actions.

We were taught in the 60's that we could no longer trust our government - sadly, that has not changed.

There was a time when patriotism could be defined by following our leaders and supporting their decisions - that was then; this is now. If a division of Iranians assaults Seattle, sign me up; if an Iranian nuke hits Dallas, I'm in; if you want oil to protect our national security and nation build, well, brother, you can count me out.

[Al_U_Card]

IF the terrorist's goal was to defeat the US militarily.....they have yet to win but only because the US has yet to "punch itself out" through attrition and just plain being sick of the whole damn mess.

IF the terrorist's goal was to cause the US pain and suffering and inflict on them cause for reflection and eventual changing of their ways....then maybe they are winning.....The US has responded in a way that can only lead to internal strife and degradation. They are denying their own citizens the basic fundamental rights that are the cornerstone of their society.

The terrorists care not for the american people nor for their american institutions. Whether they care for their own people or for certain ideals and principles is a moot point. They are a reaction to an action. If you wish to provoke a different reaction (opposite) then perhaps a different course of action is called for?

[joshs]

DrTodd13, on Jan 16 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

Rangel is an idiot. Walter Williams has a great economic evaluation of the draft. What gets used more? Product X with a price Y or product X with a price less than Y? The answer is simple. For the same product, if you charge less you get more demand for it and therefore more use. Look at the wages paid to people who are conscripted compared to the wages paid to those who volunteer. The wages paid to those who are conscripted is much less than those who have to be seduced with money before volunteering. Therefore, if we reinstate the draft we will only have the tendency for more war. His ridiculous assertion is that this will hit the families of the legislators and therefore they will be careful about starting wars. When we had the draft, does anyone really believe that the children of the wealthy had any problem avoiding service if they wanted to? The system is rife with corruption. Increase the minimum wage? Yes we will the Dems say. Oh..but wait...we won't increase it for tuna canneries in San Francisco. Why them? Surprise surprise, Nancy Pelosi's district.

Nevermind the fact that conscription is slavery. If the country is really being threatened then people will volunteer.

Somehow this is an exceedingly silly argument (although the conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons stated).

As a matter of marginal costs, lets consider 2 scenarios:
a. Current Situation, Cost of Labor (including Wages) are $5,000/month
b. Universal Service, Cost of Labor (including Wages) are $4,000/month

In scenario B, if a soldier dies in battle, our expenses go down by $4000/month.
In scenario A, if a Soldier dies in battle, our expenses go down by $5000/month.

So in fact, while you would willing buy more of something when its cheaper, you would be willing to get rid of more of something when its more expensive, and risking soldier's lives in battle corresponds with get rid of those soldiers not buying new ones..... (I.E. The goverment has to spend less money if their soldiers died then if they lived)

Of course this doesn't actually reflect the real situation. In the real situation there are two issues:
A. Every Soldier (As a labor commodity) has a marginal value/productivity (=amount of work it can do in the future) and a marginal cost (what it costs for them to do it) but there are also fixed costs (training, etc.) which have already been sunk into them to increase their marginal value. For a highly trained force (no draft), the force has high marginal value and has high fixed costs, thus are too valuable to lose. In a draft situation, there have been less fixed costs already sunk into the soldiers, and thus losing them is a greater economic loss than losing a untrained soldier. The point is that you need to compare fixed costs here, not just marginal costs. (Note: a complete analysis here has to include the different probabilities of each type dying, in addition to their different productivity.)

B. If you have a draft, then you don't need the support of the people to go to war, since you already have the means to wage war. Without a draft, you need to convince enough people to fight for home and country.

Note, of course, if a universal service gives each person the choice of how to serve: (military, low income housing core, public works, teaching, etc.) then there is not a standing reserve of soldiers available for a country to wage war, and how many people choose the military option relative to the other options does depend on the relative attractiveness of the options, which creates a market, so none of these objections really apply.

[mike777]

1) Is going to war always a choice? Do the other guys get a vote?
2) As I mentioned I do think a voluntary army is the best way right now for the USA but I can see discussing a draft in the future for some countries to be worthwhile including the usa if the goal is to win some war rather than just costs.
3) As mentioned before I think tech will play a huge role in some unknown future wars/battles. Push a computer button and some power grid or banking system fails? Robot/Borgs/malevolent AI? Just asking.
4) I see even with 20 year old tech China took out a satellite today.

[helene_t]

joshs, on Jan 20 2007, 01:06 AM, said:

As a matter of marginal costs, lets consider 2 scenarios:
a. Current Situation, Cost of Labor (including Wages) are $5,000/month
b. Universal Service, Cost of Labor (including Wages) are $4,000/month

In scenario B, if a soldier dies in battle, our expenses go down by $4000/month.
In scenario A, if a Soldier dies in battle, our expenses go down by $5000/month.

Aha - the purpose of war is to get some of those lazzy well-payed soldiers killed and save on salaries. What's next? Should we ask our friends in Kandahar, Teheran and Mekka to nuke Brussels and Washington D.C.? We could get rid of some even-better-payed parasites.

Nah, with conscripts the army get's cheaper so we can afford more canon food, yet the less able conscripts will be less effective in keeping themselves alive, hence more losses and therefore more public pressure to stop the war. Todd's argument may apply to the Soviet war in Afganistan, when the politicians were more concerned about the treasury than about the lives and opinion of the citizans. I don't think it's a significant factor in a (somewhat) civilized country. The again, a somewhat civilized country won't use concripts for the real job, even if conscripts are available.