If WW3 starts, will the draft come back?

[Blaster]

The draft was unpopular during the Vietnam war.

 

[CuleokaBob]

I was in the Navy for 23 years. Working for the Army was my post-retirement job, but almost all of my kids and their spouses were Army.

I almost died twice in the past few years, so I have my body bag standing by, not that you would care.

Correct

 

[Mushroom]

The draft was unpopular during the Vietnam war.

But that actually matters little. of the over 9 million that served from 1964-1973, just over 2.5 million were drafted. Most who served were volunteers.

 

[rightwinger]

But that actually matters little. of the over 9 million that served from 1964-1973, just over 2.5 million were drafted. Most who served were volunteers.

Many of those who “volunteered” did so because they had a low lottery number or wanted to choose their service

 

[Mushroom]

Many of those who “volunteered” did so because they had a low lottery number or wanted to choose their service

Any verifiable reference to confirm that claim?

 

[Tunafish]

I hear that our US military doesn't currently have enough staffing to fight a conventional war. So, if WW3 starts, does that mean we will need to bring back the draft? I have a grandson who is draft age, so this concerns me.

Mean tweets or the draft. What a difference three years has made.
If you voted for Biden, you own it

 

[rightwinger]

Any verifiable reference to confirm that claim?

Common sense you fucking moron
Someone about to be drafted will “volunteer” for the Navy or Air Force to avoid combat.

The Draft creates a lot of volunteers

 

[Mushroom]

Common sense you fucking moron

Translation, it was something you made up and have no actual evidence to say it is anything but a figment of your imagination.

 

[SavannahMann]

I hear that our US military doesn't currently have enough staffing to fight a conventional war. So, if WW3 starts, does that mean we will need to bring back the draft? I have a grandson who is draft age, so this concerns me.

If World War 3 kicks off it will go Nuclear in no time flat. So the odds of anyone having a chance to enlist or be drafted is minimal.

 

[rightwinger]

Translation, it was something you made up and have no actual evidence to say it is anything but a figment of your imagination.

Double Down on being a Fucking Moron

Anyone who lived in the 60s and early 70s knows that those with low draft numbers enlisted to be able to choose their service or National Guard/ Reserves

Doesn’t mean they volunteered out of patriotism

 

[Mushroom]

Double Down on being a Fucking Moron

As typical, you hurl insults, yet can not do a damned thing to back up your claims.

Oh, and everybody in the 1960s knew that blacks moving into your neighborhood would cause property values to crash also. I could not give a rat's arse what you or others think, it is only what you can prove that matters.

And being unable to prove your beliefs, as typical you simply attack people that challenge you.

 

[Mushroom]

If World War 3 kicks off it will go Nuclear in no time flat.

Why would that be?

People thought the exact same thing about chemical weapons in WWII, that was the Weapon of Mass Destruction of that era. But guess what? All nations other than one held back and did not use them. And a lot of that had to do with not only the response to such a use by those that were attacked by them, but also the possible repercussions by their own allies.

If Italy had used chemical weapons against the allies, that would have been strongly condemned by Germany. And the same if the Soviets had used them, the other Allied Powers would have condemned them for that. Plus it would have greatly increased the use of still more chemical weapons.

History shows that so long as the nations at war are rational, they will tend to stick within the rules set aside for proper behavior during armed conflicts. The only nations to have used such weapons in the last 7 decades are all ones that are considered by everybody to have been irrational nations. And notice, the largest violator of that no longer exists as the same nation.

The first nation in a WWIII to use nukes will be the loser. Because even their allies will back away in horror and might even declare war against them themselves.

 

[rightwinger]

As typical, you hurl insults, yet can not do a damned thing to back up your claims.

Oh, and everybody in the 1960s knew that blacks moving into your neighborhood would cause property values to crash also. I could not give a rat's arse what you or others think, it is only what you can prove that matters.

And being unable to prove your beliefs, as typical you simply attack people that challenge you.

Sorry Skippy
Not playing

 

[bodecea]

Sounds like a good idea. Especially if it applies to the children of wealthy, powerful people and poor, powerless people equally.

Men and women.

 

[Mushroom]

Sorry Skippy
Not playing

Of course not, because what you are claiming is not true. People who actually claim things that are true are able to verify their claims. Those who simply make things up always seem to get pissed when they are challenged on their made up fantasies.

 

[Mushroom]

Especially if it applies to the children of wealthy, powerful people and poor, powerless people equally.

It does. There are simply more of one demographic than there are of the other.

 

[SavannahMann]

Why would that be?

People thought the exact same thing about chemical weapons in WWII, that was the Weapon of Mass Destruction of that era. But guess what? All nations other than one held back and did not use them. And a lot of that had to do with not only the response to such a use by those that were attacked by them, but also the possible repercussions by their own allies.

If Italy had used chemical weapons against the allies, that would have been strongly condemned by Germany. And the same if the Soviets had used them, the other Allied Powers would have condemned them for that. Plus it would have greatly increased the use of still more chemical weapons.

History shows that so long as the nations at war are rational, they will tend to stick within the rules set aside for proper behavior during armed conflicts. The only nations to have used such weapons in the last 7 decades are all ones that are considered by everybody to have been irrational nations. And notice, the largest violator of that no longer exists as the same nation.

The first nation in a WWIII to use nukes will be the loser. Because even their allies will back away in horror and might even declare war against them themselves.

Nonsense.

Russia has been threatening nuclear weapons in Ukraine since day two when their attack was bogging down.

If the war goes wider, as in allied conventional armies on the field. Russia will use nukes to shore up their Army. That would be the so called “tactical” nukes. But when American Servicemen are nuked. We will respond. We have to.

Then it becomes at best a gradual escalation. Worst, all out nuclear war.

It might even start in Israel.

The point is when the Idiots in charge become convinced that is the only way to make sure their defeat is shared, they’ll fire.

 

[Mushroom]

Russia has been threatening nuclear weapons in Ukraine since day two when their attack was bogging down.

And in almost two years have they used any yet?

Back during the Cold War the supposition was that they would also use chemical weapons in such a situation as Ukraine now. Have they used those yet?

"Threats" from a nation actually mean damned little, especially if it is not an official national policy statement. But you also have to realize that if such were to happen, it would expand the war into an area Russia would not want to see.

At this time, they are only fighting Ukraine and nobody else. But if they dropped a nuke there, then that will unquestionably involve Poland. And they are a NATO member. And even make "allies" like Belarus rethink things as they would likely end up getting a hell of a lot of fallout from a Russian nuke. Not much will make an ally rethink their decision more than their ally irradiating their country.

And if Russia is complaining about the sanctions now, imagine the world where they used nukes. India, China, pretty much everybody but North Korea will be pulling back as hard and fast as they can if they were to do such, and they know it.

That is why I said "The first nation in a WWIII to use nukes will be the loser". Because they will suddenly find themselves alone on the world stage, with no allies at that point.

Plus, are their own forces even willing to use them? That is something every nation would have to consider in the event of first use. We saw that first hand in Iraq, where units that were ordered to use chemical weapons outright refused. Many just burying them and abandoning the site to surrender. That is one reason for decades they have still been finding the damned things all over the place. Quite often under former artillery and rocket locations. The troops on the ground knew what the response would have been if they had used them, so they simply refused.

And we saw the same damned thing even in US war games during the cold war. Commanders and those with their fingers on the buttons almost never hesitated if they were ordered to launch in response. But as a first strike, a large number simply refused to follow the order. That is why one of the main projected uses of the Pershing in West Germany was not actually on invading Warsaw Pact forces, but as area denial on unoccupied locations we had abandoned.

That is why the Soviets put so damned much work into the T-64. Specifically, the capability of it to operate on a "nuclear battlefield". It would no more survive a nuke than any other tank, but it was actually designed to pass through an irradiated area that would stop most other tanks. Thereby negating much of the area denial intent of the US in the era.

 

[SavannahMann]

And in almost two years have they used any yet?

Back during the Cold War the supposition was that they would also use chemical weapons in such a situation as Ukraine now. Have they used those yet?

"Threats" from a nation actually mean damned little, especially if it is not an official national policy statement. But you also have to realize that if such were to happen, it would expand the war into an area Russia would not want to see.

At this time, they are only fighting Ukraine and nobody else. But if they dropped a nuke there, then that will unquestionably involve Poland. And they are a NATO member. And even make "allies" like Belarus rethink things as they would likely end up getting a hell of a lot of fallout from a Russian nuke. Not much will make an ally rethink their decision more than their ally irradiating their country.

And if Russia is complaining about the sanctions now, imagine the world where they used nukes. India, China, pretty much everybody but North Korea will be pulling back as hard and fast as they can if they were to do such, and they know it.

That is why I said "The first nation in a WWIII to use nukes will be the loser". Because they will suddenly find themselves alone on the world stage, with no allies at that point.

Plus, are their own forces even willing to use them? That is something every nation would have to consider in the event of first use. We saw that first hand in Iraq, where units that were ordered to use chemical weapons outright refused. Many just burying them and abandoning the site to surrender. That is one reason for decades they have still been finding the damned things all over the place. Quite often under former artillery and rocket locations. The troops on the ground knew what the response would have been if they had used them, so they simply refused.

And we saw the same damned thing even in US war games during the cold war. Commanders and those with their fingers on the buttons almost never hesitated if they were ordered to launch in response. But as a first strike, a large number simply refused to follow the order. That is why one of the main projected uses of the Pershing in West Germany was not actually on invading Warsaw Pact forces, but as area denial on unoccupied locations we had abandoned.

That is why the Soviets put so damned much work into the T-64. Specifically, the capability of it to operate on a "nuclear battlefield". It would no more survive a nuke than any other tank, but it was actually designed to pass through an irradiated area that would stop most other tanks. Thereby negating much of the area denial intent of the US in the era.

The travel time for Nukes is so short that it won’t matter. A leader would have minutes to decide to fire or not. And much of it would be automatic.

Putin decides to fire. It won’t matter what his Allie’s do because everyone with their own nukes is going to know in five minutes that missiles are flying. They won’t have time to retarget the missiles. It is now a question of use them or lose them.

In the first half hour all land based missiles will be in the air or already impacted. That leaves bombs and cruise missiles and submarines.

Submarines have automatic doomsday protocols. The British for example. If they can’t reach headquarters they try and get BBC-2 on shortwave. If they can’t they wait. For three days they try and then the Captain gets the orders from the Prime Minister out of the Safe.

American Submarines. Hell all of the nuclear weapon armed subs has some version of the Doomsday Scenario planned in.

But back to those first few minutes. You have fifteen minutes to decide. You can’t retarget the missiles. You can fire them or not. With weapons inbound. You fire.

300 nuclear missiles are heading your way. You must respond. What now?

Inside Moran Cerf’s quest to modernise the decision-making process that could end life on earth

www.ft.com

90% of those who went through the scenario fired a full retaliatory strike.

But even if the President didn’t. And all command and control was lost. The subs on patrol would fire when the timer reached zero on the doomsday tapes.

Those missiles are targeted already. They’re programmed. The captains don’t know who launched an attack. They just know their duty is to fire their missiles. The targets may have been chosen and programmed in months or even years before.

It all happens too fast for time to think. To try and decide who is to blame. That takes time. Time you don’t have. All you have is a decision. Do I fire or just stand and let us die? Or do I make sure we aren’t lonely in the afterlife?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Of course it is. Quite a lot of major nations simply sat out both World Wars.

Spain in WWII being one of the biggest ones. As was Sweden, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Almost all of Central and South America sat that war out also.

And I would not be so sure on Brazil. They are in a key position and could largely cut off transit between the North and South Atlantic. I still remember when the UK and Argentina had their tiff a few decades ago, and a lot of people had legitimate concerns on what might have happened if Brazil had decided to get involved and side with Argentina.

And a lot of their fleet is actually pretty modern.

Spain and Turkey were hardly major nations in the 1940s. Spain had not even begun to recover from its civil war and Turkey was still recovering from is loss of WWI. Neither country is considered a major nation today and Turkey's only relevance is its membership in NATO and it was only allowed into NATO because it controls the Bosporus Strait which was the USSR's (and now Russia's) only warm-water access to the world's oceans. Turkey is now backsliding into becoming another Islamic theocracy as evidenced by the improved relations with Iran and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque. It's also threatening to provide Hamas with naval and military support. The South American countries were unimportant, Argentina was always pro-German as was Chile (I believe). None of them were going to tangle with the USA being economically dependent on either the UK or USA in those days. As for the Falklands War, Brazil could probably have tilted the playing field in favor of Argentina because the British were fighting that war on a shoestring on the far side of the world from their bases in Europe. The UK then might have invoked Article Five of the NATO compact bringing the USA into the war since Argentina had clearly invaded British territory and killed its citizens. The USA was already tacitly supporting the Brits allowing access to American airfields and providing advanced Aim-9 Sidewinders from NATO war stocks that were much more advanced than the ones the RAF and FAA had in their stocks. The NATO Sidewinders were all-aspect capable, meaning that they could be launched from in front of targets rather than only from aspects where their seekers could see the hot engine exhaust.