Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CorrectI 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.
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.
Many of those who “volunteered” did so because they had a low lottery number or wanted to choose their service
Mean tweets or the draft. What a difference three years has made.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.
Common sense you fucking moronAny verifiable reference to confirm that claim?
Common sense you fucking moron
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.
Double Down on being a Fucking MoronTranslation, 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
If World War 3 kicks off it will go Nuclear in no time flat.
Sorry SkippyAs 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.
Men and women.Sounds like a good idea. Especially if it applies to the children of wealthy, powerful people and poor, powerless people equally.
Sorry Skippy
Not playing
Especially if it applies to the children of wealthy, powerful people and poor, powerless people equally.
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.
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.
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.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.