USA goes conscription...

[Pekka]

uh Clem, it would be a rule naturally. It would be tempting idea to use them inside the US as they'd might not have such big problems to use force when needed, so it would have to be a rule that it can't happen. They could not be aloud to use any force against the US citizens.. like observe demonstrations etc. Nothing like that.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Daz
Sikander:

When you say "nuk'em" what am I supposed to say? DO you really view this as a serious option? Do you think that in that case China would stand and watch? Do you think the US gov would even think about using nuclear weapons?

Did I give you the impression that my question was not a serious one, thus giving me such an answer? You could at least put a " " to let me know you're joking.

....you're not joking...right?

I think everyone is vastly underestimating the desire of Kim Jong-Il to survive.

The point of a nuclear deterrant isn't to use it, but to be willing to use it. The US is certainly committed to maintaining the territorial sovereignty of SK. Would the US be prepared to use unlimited nuclear force given an invading force? Probably not. They do have a first strike capability in the area however.

The entire area is swarming with US sub forces. Those forces have a more than capable first-strike nuclear deterrent.

I'm thinking that the US politicians have made it quite clear that the border is a line in the sand that the US will have little tolerance for especially given the current escalated tensions.

Does NK want to gain control of the south? Yes. Does it want to be destroyed in doing so? No. Does China want to protect NK? Yes. Would China want a hotwar to result from this? No. Does the US want to protect SK? Yes. Is it going to infer use of a nuclear deterrent over this? Probably at this point. Will it go through with it? Maybe

The analysis is... how sure is Kim Jong-Il that the US will not use nuclear devices to strike incoming troops?

With this uncertainty, its unlikely that Kim Jong-Il will actually act. It goes against his nature. He wants to survive, more than anything.

[Pekka]

Ok everyone wanting to talk about the foreign legion of the US, there is another thread about it. Go there now! It's your duty or the terrorists win!

[Ming]

It isn't going to happen... While many consider our current batch of leaders stupid, even they aren't stupid enough to suggest bring back conscription. It's political death to do so...

[Daz]

I agree. But we're not talking about NK invading SK! We're talking USA invading NK, that is, spanking NK for being evil. Nothing to do with SK.

I asked "does the USA have enough troops to invade" and the answer was: "lets just nuke North Korea to kingdom come".


Im getting flamed all over appolyton today. Gotta quit being radica. I'll see ya all on monday. Have a nice weekend...

[spiritof1202]

but there'd be no reason for us to invade NK. A precision strike on the gas centrifuge facilities? Maybe.

It does stand that NK is desparate for cash and wants to talk unilaterally for with the US. The US are insistent on the Japs and SK'eans being involved, however.

NK is going to entirely run out of steam, a la USSR without a cash infusion soon.

[DanS]

If we had to attack NK, conscripting people would not help us. We would be doing our best to level the country using other, less labor-intensive means.

[David Floyd]

This looks like the granddaddy of conscription case law, as it relates to the 13th Amendment:

ARVER v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

Some relevant passages, followed by my refutations:

The possession of authority to enact the statute [conscription] must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power 'to declare war; ... to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' Article 1, 8. And of course the powers conferred by these provisions like all other powers given carry with them as pro ided by the Constitution the authority 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' Article 1, 8.

Basically, SCOTUS is saying that the original Constitution allowed conscription. First of all, one of the Founders, Daniel Webster, would strongly disagree with this: http://www.constitution.org/dwebster/conscription.htm

Additionally, it seems absolutely illogical that a group of men who declared independence from Great Britain because of perceived British tyranny and exactions would form a country able to exercise the same, or greater, tyranny. One may disagree with original intent arguments, but this is just common sense.

It may not be doubted that the very sonception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it.

Looks like BAM was on the Supreme Court

1 In England it is certain that before the [245 U.S. 366, 379] Norman Conquest the duty of the great militant body of the citizens was recognized and enforceable.

Yes, but this seems to prove the opposite point - of course England exercised tyranny. That's the point of the Revolution.

In the Colonies before the separation from England there cannot be the slightest doubt that the right to enforce military service was unquestioned and that practical effect was given to the power in many cases.

See above - this only lends credence to the opposite viewpoint.

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

Here it comes - the only reference to the Thirteenth Amendment in the entire decision. Rather odd, seeing as how the Thirteenth Amendment was in many ways the nature of the complaint. Yet when this amendment was finally addressed, the Court did not actually make any good arguments. The phrase "supreme and noble duty", and appeals to patriotism and honor are not legal arguments at all, and pretty much irrelevant.

I can only conclude that the Supreme Court was caught up in the nationalism sickness pervading much of the US during WW1, and that the current Court would almost have to re-hear a 13th Amendment case, based upon the fact that THIS particular case simply did not address the issue.

[Static Universe]

The U.S. is unlikely to bring back the draft as the Pentagon is very much against it. In some ways, they still feel they really lost Viet Nam due to the draftees.

Given the number of commercials the U.S. military runs, I'd say they have a pretty firm commitment to the volunteer army.

[Shadowstrike]

As romantic the notion of letting foreigners fight to gain citizenship, would this not lead to more gun-toting mercenary type immigrants on the street instead of just normal people wanting to build a new life? The costs to public safety alone would outweigh the benefits of creating a foreign legion-esque force.

[St Leo]

In Heinlein's starship troopers only ones that can vote and hold public office are veterans. One can speculate if such militarisation of society would be good or not.

After reading Starship Troopers, I decided that anyone who joins military service should have their right to vote stripped from them.

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by uh Clem


What's stopping you?

Country don't need me yet. We restart the draft, I know they need me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pekka
I mean, you don't have to love the idea, but why be against it? If we would assume that it's not a big security risk.. then why the hell not? I didn't get any replys from mr Rumsfeld when I tried to email this to him.. I don't think he even had the time to read it or if anyone even gave it to him
bastards!

They already do this, Pekka.

I know several Canadians who have gone south to join the Marine Corps or the Navy. Automatic citizenship when they are/were done.

Call the consulate or embassy near you. Ask them about joining the branch of your choice. If your English is good enough, and your background checks out, maybe...

[Asher]

How does conscription affect dual-citizens?

As a dual citizen of the US and Canada, if the US introduced conscription and I lived in Canada, would I still be forced to go?

[notyoueither]

Do they still have selective service registration? What are the residency provisions? Or rather, what were they?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher
How does conscription affect dual-citizens?

As a dual citizen of the US and Canada, if the US introduced conscription and I lived in Canada, would I still be forced to go?

Yep!!!!

I don't care. I'm 50.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
would this not lead to more gun-toting mercenary type immigrants on the street instead of just normal people wanting to build a new life?

France doesn't seem to have those problems.

[David Floyd]

Yep!!!!

I don't care. I'm 50.

Oddly enough, this is the same attitude that those who vote for the draft display.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oddly enough, this is the same attitude that those who vote for the draft display.

For God's sake David! The military doesn't want a draft! There are better windmills to go tilting at.

[David Floyd]

I don't care. If even one Representative or Senator is pushing for a draft, that's one too many.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

David Floyd - Your answer on page 2 of this thread was really useful; thanks. You should know, however, that Webster wasn't one of the Founders; he was only 7 years old when th Constitution was written.

[CapitanGarlic]

I've got flat feet. And I could always arrange a 'hunting accident', being from Montana and all...(nudge nudge, wink wink)

[David Floyd]

You should know, however, that Webster wasn't one of the Founders; he was only 7 years old when th Constitution was written.

True, I misworded it - what I meant was basically that he would have been in a good position to have a better understanding of intent, and if one is making an appeal to authority, Webster is a good one to appeal to.

[Q Classic]

It depends on the sort of lesson envisioned. I would recommend either not teaching them a lesson, or teaching them a lesson with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. IIRC total U.S. active duty forces are a little over 2 million.

that's right, let's nuke those damned jap bastards. nobody needs more red chinks anyhow. fvckin' slopes. those gooks had it comin'.
actually might be a good idea. far too many of them in the first place.

seems a bit overboard, doesn't it? but that's what it'll look like, especially when one notices the only race to ever be nuked is the east asian race. it'll be a public relations nightmare.

as to the question does the USA have enough troops to invade,
the answer is no. Nkorea is much more heavily defended than iraq is. iraq is flat; nkorea is mostly mountain. tanks aren't going to be as useful.
iraq is warm, mostly sunny, and aside from the occasional sandstorm, has good weather to fight in.
nkorea is completely temperate; the snows are heavy, the summers are blistering. since most of the fighting will be done by ground troops, it'll be extremely tough footwork for them.
iraq has not been under a seige mentality for the past fifty years.
nkorea has.
if the us invaded, with skorea's full support, although they would win, since most of the campaign would be on the ground, both countries would be bled dry, at least in active forces. a pyrrhic victory, which is why i say no.

the draft? i don't like it. if they reinstated it, it would be important to me what the war was. if it was korea, i'd sign up. if it were anywhere else, i'd have to be convinced.

[cinch]

They already do this, Pekka.

I was just going to say this, NYE.

There was even a recent article about it on cbc.ca; there are a few Micmac boys from down east fighting in Iraq with the Marines.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oddly enough, this is the same attitude that those who vote for the draft display.

Yep! Bring it on! I don't care!

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
It's a what-if thread. Now, let's get the obvious out of the way:

[David Floyd]
The government has no right to conscript citizens!!!
[/David Floyd]

I must say that, while I normally regard Floyd's libertarian fundamentalism as simply loopy, I do wonder how one squares the draft with the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

How is the draft not "involuntary servitude"? Anybody have the case law on this?

The supreme court ruled that you get paid so it is not slavery. I would consider it "involentary servitude" but the courts have shot that one down in every war since the Civil War.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Basically, SCOTUS is saying that the original Constitution allowed conscription.

Actually it did. The 'necessary and proper' clause, added to the power of congress to raise and support armies, obviously (and yes it is obvious) gives Congress the power to conscript.

If you wish to talk about the 'founders', read the opinion you linked:

the government determined that the excrcise of the power to organize an army by compulsory draft was necessary and Mr. Monroe, the Secretary of War (Mr. Madison being President), in a letter to Congress recommended several plans of legislation on that subject.

I'd think James Madison was a founder.

And let us link to the provision you quoted:

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

If you read what this clause said, you can tell that it addressed the 13th Amendment. The court could not concieve that the Amendment abridged Congress' right to conscript. Basically they said that the 13th Amendment was intended (an argument that you like... intention of the drafters) to end slavery, and not to prohibit the draft.

And btw, this reading of the amendment (it's intention wasn't to limit Congress' power to conscript) has been backed in 523 cases in the lower courts. SCOTUS will never revisit the issue again, I can assure you that.

[David Floyd]

Actually it did. The 'necessary and proper' clause, added to the power of congress to raise and support armies, obviously (and yes it is obvious) gives Congress the power to conscript.

I fail to see how it is obvious that they would copy some of the tyrannical practices of the British, against whom they revolted.

I'd think James Madison was a founder.

Yes, and you also have to realize that power corrupts.

And btw, this reading of the amendment (it's intention wasn't to limit Congress' power to conscript) has been backed in 523 cases in the lower courts. SCOTUS will never revisit the issue again, I can assure you that.

Oh, so original intent is relevant now? You're gonna have to pick one side or the other.

[Oerdin]

The writer's intent is always relevent when trying to understand what he means.