* conscientious, not contentious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

Conscientious objectors represent an exceptionally small proportion of the population as it is.

Because that isn't how a conservative free market works.

This selective service policy change is unrelated to any prospective or ongoing military operations.

Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Officers have accepted comparably low pay for the history of the U.S. armed services. Cited reasons include prestige, networking opportunities, and as a distant third, sense of duty to nation.

What you wrote has nothing to do with the article.

The draft is for

(a) massively unpopular wars that the public won't consent to (b) existential wars that require huge manpower.

It's for cannon fodder; not at all for "smart", "qualified" people.

- The US has had record breaking recruitment in the last 1.5 years. - This policy is a readiness, not an activation. It's not related to current recruitment.

Traditionally the US believes arming the people (2nd Amendment) means we're a stronger nation. Having bases globally makes us a stronger nation. Having everybody registered to the draft makes us a stronger nation.

Joining the military is not just a job. The baggage is considerably different than every other job.

The obvious difference is that you cannot quit.

It's not a problem that money can solve. If you think it is, it's over.

It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation. Recognise that young men have nothing worth fighting for now. There is a much larger issue that can't be solved by throwing a few more shekels at disillusioned mercenaries.

> I still don’t understand why, if they are having trouble with recruitment, they simply won’t raise the pay to entice more recruits?

Because the proles don't deserve it, that might give them ideas and they'll force you to fight before they give you a fair deal

No one gets rich by giving more money to soldiers.

In fact, one of the things we should have is a military union that fights for the pay of enlisted men (officers are management and therefore Pinkertons) instead of the controlled opposition we have now. Imagine if we could just strike for higher pay on the eve of Normandy. How effective that would be for labor rights!

And then we could follow the predominant feminist opinion and make the draft illegal entirely and disband the military except in times of extreme need. Our people need universal healthcare not air to ground missiles.

The military budget would be better served by being entirely redirected to those who have been disabled in our military through our foolish actions.

Maybe if we made a true overture of peace, others would love us instead of always arriving with missiles. With some neurodivergent people at the top, we could handle this well.

I found that strange as well. Who were they quoting, given that the Department of War hasn’t existed since 1947 and as far as I know Jimmy Carter didn’t pretend that it still did.

It was historically called "Department of War" then renamed to "Department of Defense" and of course, recently reverted to the original name.

Quit being obnoxious and have something of substance to say. It’s disrespectful to the author, senior defense reporter Ellen Mitchell, who is simply pulling from Selective Service’s materials.

I think perhaps this is overly associated with violence. Have we just consider calling it something neutral like Department of Loss Management? This is another crucial thing an armed forces union that actually cared about human rights and the need for more underrepresented people in the armed forces could do. We need more neurodivergent and disabled people in the Department of Loss Management.

The way to make women ad men equal with respect to the draft is to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, as supported by many feminists:

https://hasbrouck.org/draft/repeal.html

More on what femninists say about the dratt and draft registration: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html

There was a lawsuit about the constitutionality of only requiring men to register back during the first Trump administration that won at the District Court level but lost on appeal in the Fifth Circuit. SCOTUS declined to take the case at the time because Congress was considering changing the Selective Service System. Then Congress ultimately did nothing, and the same people are now suing the government again in a different circuit.

It was always about all of men's privileges (on top of their own), and none of men's accountability.

The burden of proof is on the government to prove that any violation of the Military Selective service Act was "knowing and willful". That's almost impossible without a public confession, signature on a registered letter, or testimony of an FBI agent who served an order or notice to register or report for induction.

According to the Federal Office of Personnel Management, only 1% of cases of nonregistrants adjudicated by OPM result in denial of Federal employment. Almost everyone who appealed a denial got their job restored:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-07/pdf/2024-0...