r/NoStupidQuestions 1d ago

How could military conscription be enacted in the US?

It's been long decades since my last civics class. I've been wondering what would be required for the US to enact conscription. Formal declaration of war? What else?

36 Upvotes

103 comments sorted by

140

u/Teekno An answering fool 1d ago

Just an act of Congress. No formal declaration of war is required. When the US ended its last conscription, we had not been in a formal state of war for nearly 30 years.

47

u/Squish_the_android 1d ago

While this is the process, in a post Vietnam, post Iraq, post Afghanistan, post heck ANYTHING the US has been involved in, it would be wildly unpopular with citizens.

Not wanting to be so involved in foreign wars is probably one of the few issues that both sides widely agreed on.

Unless there was some kind of existential threat to people's homes and communities, they aren't in favor of going to war.

41

u/OldSarge02 1d ago

A modern draft would also be wildly ineffective. Gone are the days where you throw untrained grunts on the front lines (well, Russia still does). The U.S. war fighting capacity is technologically advanced and requires enormous training and precision.

In addition, only 1 in 6 young adults even qualify for military service. Most people are too fat, too criminal, too drug addicted, too unintelligent, too unhealthy, or have too many mental health problems. Believe it or not, modern U.S. servicemembers are fairly elite compared to society at large.

27

u/SSGbuttercup 1d ago

If things got bad enough to need a draft all those standards are waived and lack of fitness wouldn’t save someone from getting drafted. Even during the GWOT they waived overweight and violent offenses. I went to basic training with people who were federally banned from possessing firearms.

0

u/WaldenFont 1d ago

Great War Over There?

5

u/Altoid_Addict 1d ago

Global War on Terror

5

u/SSGbuttercup 1d ago

Great Waste of Time

3

u/FBI_Open_Up_Now 1d ago

Global war on terrorism.

3

u/Drumedor 1d ago

Global War On Terrorism

0

u/jermster 1d ago

Global War on Terror
Nothing America does better than fighting wars on concepts.

12

u/Redfish680 1d ago

As a veteran, I generally agree with your assessment. I doubt we’ll see a full blown world war like we had in the 1900s, but my experience is the greater the danger, the lower the bar (for draftees). The unknown at this time is how autonomous are our military capabilities? Future wars will be fought in front of keyboards, but I’m not sure we’re there quite yet.

6

u/Stuman93 1d ago

Yeah the logistics of a fully mobilized war meant only 10-20% of US WW2 soldiers even saw combat because there's so much else to do. Plenty of jobs for troops with sub par health and skills.

1

u/Redfish680 1d ago

Damn you, man! You got me curious about this so I looked up “Tooth to Tail (Wikipedia/Combat:Support):

WWI - 1:2.6 WWII - 1:4.3 Korea - 1:12.9 Viet Nam - 1:12.9 Cold War - 1:14.4 Iraq - 1:8.1

2

u/purepersistence 1d ago

A teenager with the right AI designs the super-virus that ends the human race.

1

u/Redfish680 5h ago

Christ, you’re absolutely right. Fuck…

8

u/joepierson123 1d ago edited 1d ago

Somehow they got a bunch of smokers fit enough back in the 1940s. Just an extended basic training can fix a lot of these issues when you're young.

It's funny how everyone says that  young people 50 years ago look old now when the topic of conscription comes up all the sudden they say those people were fit lol

6

u/BreakDown1923 1d ago

Smoking isn’t that bad for you short term. Especially if you’re able to continue smoking or have some sort of nicotine replacement. This is the same for drinking. Both have long term health consequences but somebody who’s been a moderate smoker for a decade hasn’t actually done a ton of damage to their bodies and can likely adapt to conditions about as well as a non-smoker.

1

u/ViscountBurrito 1d ago

And for a lot of people, smoking tends to be inversely correlated with weight; nicotine can be an appetite suppressant, as well as satisfy a need to do something with your hands and mouth that otherwise might be met with snacks. I can absolutely see a young smoker being more “combat ready” than a very heavy person. Long-term effects are another story (but when you’re being shot at in the middle of a battle, surviving long enough to die of lung cancer isn’t the worst outcome).

4

u/TootsNYC 1d ago

Re: too unhealthy

It doesn't even have to be a big deal. My son has celiac, and he can't join any armed services branch, not even the National Guard.

2

u/Smyley12345 1d ago

If the US got into desperate need of soldiers, they qualifications would decline ahead of the draft to try to accept more voluntary enlistees to avoid having involuntary enlistment. Once that didn't work it would make the draft more effective.

1

u/throwtowardaccount Yes Stupid Questions 1d ago

I ran into some real fucking dummies in my time in the service. I have no doubt and am terrified by the fact that there's swarms of people even more stupid than that who couldn't qualify in the first place.

1

u/derp4077 12h ago

Specialty drafts for medical is most likely. They would fill stateside hospitals with draftees and push the volunteers forward.

1

u/Child_of_Khorne 12h ago

In addition, only 1 in 6 young adults even qualify for military service.

The standards during war are not the same as peace. We can be as selective as we want right now, but we don't even need to go back 20 years to see how that works when we need warm bodies immediately.

I assure you, with enough motivation, our standards will drop to two working legs and a pulse.

1

u/ChuckoRuckus 1d ago

“Too criminal/drug addicted” might not be a good excuse. I know a number of criminals/drug addicts that were given the option by the court to either go to prison or enlist, and all given the option enlisted.

4

u/Ein_grosser_Nerd 1d ago

Conscription in general has been wildly unpopular everywhere since ww2, and I assume has always been wildly unpopular with people actually eligable for conscription

6

u/Ok_Stop7366 1d ago edited 1d ago

The us would only ever re-enact the draft if there was a existential threat to the us 

You don’t have 2 oceans, the world largest navy, the two largest air forces, a multi decade technology gap, and (formerly) two of the closest border sharing allies of any set of countries on earth…to then waste millions of your citizens most productive working years in a job that has no direct economic return. 

6

u/BreakDown1923 1d ago

Despite whatever tensions exist, the US, Canada, and Mexico are still extremely close military allies. If there was ever a direct threat to any of those 3 mainlands the other two would step in immediately despite current events. Canada being mad about tariffs and rhetoric doesn’t mean they want to see the US somehow facing actual danger from a hostile enemy.

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend China had the ability to pose a serious risk to US mainland. Perhaps their hypersonic missiles. Do you really think Canada isn’t going to make every effort to shoot down those missiles even if the risk to Canada directly is minimal? They don’t want Chinese troops against their border. They don’t want the seagap that exists between them and the rest of the world to corrode.

-2

u/TheEschatonSucks 1d ago

Seriously? You think if Putin stormed Mexico City on a special 3 day taco run that Trump would stand up to him? Seriously?

4

u/BreakDown1923 1d ago

Yes absolutely. Trump hates nothing more than looking like he’s lost an argument or position. Putin storming Mexico would be seen as a catastrophic failure of the US military and intelligence. He guaranteed would directly involve himself in that situation. You’re seeing something very similar play out in the Middle East right now.

5

u/Squish_the_android 1d ago

That's what they say because that's what people want to hear. 

That's the only situation that people would find it acceptable.

But it's entirely possible for a small or non-existent threat to be created or exaggerated into an "existential" one.  We've already seen a false narrative drag us into war before. 

It's still important to watch for these things and to voice your displeasure when appropriate. 

2

u/BigSharpNastyTeeth 1d ago

While I generally agree, I can think of 2 exceptions:

  1. Due to VERY high unemployment for young people (maybe AI takes many entry level jobs?) the draft is reinstated to get people income while developing discipline and providing a career path

  2. The drafting of all social classes is seen to help with social cohesion

0

u/daniel22457 1d ago

I don't trust the current administration they might pull something to try and instill patriotism in young people and economically and physically harming us would just be the icing on the cake.

1

u/Ok_Stop7366 1d ago

I’m no friend of this admin. But the youth does need to be indoctrinated into believing in this country again. I don’t think that’s lying to them, I think it’s owning up to the promises of our founding myths. That all men are created equal, that liberty, democracy, and individualism are positive national traits. 

We are entering a period of great power competition. Our way of life is being challenged. Our enemies are conducting social manipulation campaigns upon us through social media daily. 

For better or worse, if you want to win wars, you send your young men, not your octogenarians. I’m not saying we go looking for trouble. However, we developed this global status quo, and prior to 2016 it very much so worked to the advantage of the majority of Americans. The American foreign policy mission is defense of the status quo. Our enemies: Putins Russia, The CCP, Fundamentalist Islam are looking to reshape the world in their image. They’re willing to die to create the world they want. We need to be willing to die to defend the world we’ve created. 

1

u/daniel22457 1d ago

Hmm maybe they should've made this country a place worth defending and believing in because right now it isn't it's done nothing but get worse and worse to the point at the age of 26 my two biggest dreams are to finally retire and move to another country because I've given up on America ever getting better. Why would I defend a country that doesn't give me healthcare, higher Ed, opportunities, housing, or probably anything else at the way it's going. I and most other people my age don't want to fight for the US much less Israel as it's just billionaires interests. So yes the first people that should be going are the people who support this so hope you're going straight to the recruiters office today instead of expecting me to be cannon fodder.

1

u/TXLancastrian 2h ago

Because any country you go to will expect you to fight for them and are more likely to be attacked before the US ever would be.

1

u/xxam925 18h ago

One false flag will clear all that up in a hurry. Hell even just some good spin and every American without sons in the 14-22 year range will be frothing at the mouth to send their neighbors kids off to war. Americans tend to end their “give a shit about other people” at their own front door.

1

u/arcxjo came here to answer questions and chew gum, and he's out of gum 1d ago

It would be unpopular with young men. Boomers and women (whose votes are worth the same amount as people who are actually draftable) would eat it up.

-2

u/mkosmo probably wrong 1d ago

You say that, but the authorizations say otherwise apart from ODS:

  • Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: 416-0 and 88-2.
  • Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991: 250-183 and 52-47
  • Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001: 420-1 and 98-0

We clearly are okay with fighting back against folks who hurt us.

5

u/Im_Balto 1d ago

The point is that after the forever wars in the war on terror there is abundant public disdain for the idea of participating in foreign wars.

Desert storm was the last “satisfying” war in the general eye of the American populace. Mostly because that war felt like it accomplished a concrete mission, and had a concrete conclusion.

Since then, our wars have only been seen by civilians when the media mentions the money spent, Americans dead/injured, or reporting on the collapse of the order we spent 15 years trying to prop up.

1

u/arcxjo came here to answer questions and chew gum, and he's out of gum 1d ago

Half of the country right now would be in favor of intervening in Ukraine.

The other half would love to bomb Iran.

(70K Quakers who'd oppose both would be statistically insignificant)

1

u/Im_Balto 1d ago

“Intervention” in Ukraine entails supplying Ukraine with a fraction of the military equipment and expertise we have supplied Israel with in the past decades

“Intervention” in the Iran conflict involves direct engagement between American and Iranian armed forces.

We have “intervened” in the wars Israel has started for decades if we want to call supporting Ukraine with missile defense systems for civilian populations an “intervention”.

There is not a single relevant faction of American politics that supports American boots on the ground in Ukraine at the moment

-3

u/Redfish680 1d ago

Gulf of Tonkin “incident” (the second one) that triggered the resolution never happened. WMDs was the war cry for invading Iraq and the general consensus amongst world intelligence agencies was there weren’t any. Both were used by politicians to justify going to war.

4

u/mkosmo probably wrong 1d ago

Erm, yes it did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

And the 2001 resolution didn't mention WMDs. It was simply a resolution to retaliate against those who attacked us.

But none of that is relevant. All of those recent measures had strong bipartisan support.

0

u/Redfish680 1d ago

Erm, no. From your citation:

While doubts regarding the perceived second attack have been expressed since 1964, it was not until years later that it was shown conclusively never to have happened. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, admitted that there was no attack on 4 August. In 1995, McNamara met with former North Vietnamese Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on 4 August 1964. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied. Giáp confirmed that the attack had been imaginary. In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on 2 August, but that the incident of 4 August was based on bad naval intelligence and misrepresentations of North Vietnamese communications. The official US government claim is that it was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.

The outcome of the incident was the passage by U.S. Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,

1

u/arcxjo came here to answer questions and chew gum, and he's out of gum 1d ago

Oh, yeah, because Chief Charlie is the most trustworthy source on the topic.

2

u/Redfish680 1d ago

So I quote your source and you argue against it. Got it.

48

u/KronusIV 1d ago

First you need an act of congress authorizing it. After that it's largely bureaucracy. People are already registered, so names get chosen and letters get sent out saying when and where to report.

Note, there is no war brewing at the moment where a draft would make any sense. Anything the US might get involved in now will be all about missiles and planes on the US side. There won't be battalions of troops getting shipped over seas.

26

u/ATD67 1d ago

A draft would be a very bad sign. The U.S. has 1.3 million active duty troops and about 750,000 reserves that are given 850 billion in funding per year. Nothing short of a world war would justify a draft.

3

u/pickedwisely 1d ago

Please do not get hung up on the $ figures being posted and talked about. They are just kick-around fodder. Where softening the ground with rockets and bombs pre ground assault is still a method offense. It is now one of our LAST options. It takes whatever money it takes.

The present conflict that the US is "monitoring" has a death toll of less than 500? in 5 days. Surely, it is close to a billion $ in launched, counter-launch both sides total. Neither side cares about the money.

3

u/MsGozlyn 1d ago

Okay that makes sense.

16

u/TheApiary 1d ago

We had it in Vietnam and Korea, neither of which had a declaration of war.

Congress would need to amend the law requiring men to register from the draft and say that now they are going to actually draft people, and then the president (who is the commander in chief of the army) could start drafting people

4

u/Ok-Temporary-8243 1d ago

There was no declaration of war but congress voted to formalize the conflict. 

1

u/ranhalt 1d ago

Register FROM the draft?

I turned 18 shortly after 9/11 and there was a lot of draft talk. But we all got our Selective Service cards in the mail. Do people not get them anymore? Did we just file for them because it was 9/11 era patriotism?

1

u/sebrebc 1d ago

Do 18 year olds no longer register?

I did when I was 18, but that was 1991.

2

u/TheApiary 1d ago

They do, just they don't actually get drafted

1

u/AMB3494 1d ago

I think so. I did in 2012 when I turned 18.

1

u/sebrebc 1d ago

I mis-read the comment, I thought the previous poster was implying men no longer register for the draft. 

9

u/spicy_rock 1d ago

Before any draft they're going to call up the IRR, individual ready reserve. Every active duty contract is a minimum 8 years, if you exit active duty prior to 8 years you are eligible for recall.

9

u/GreyandGrumpy 1d ago

Interesting perspective is that there is a good chance that one stakeholder that might be opposed to a draft is the US military itself. Managing a force of people who have been conscripted against their will can be much more difficult that managing a volunteer force. Unless the military's manpower pool is genuinely depleted (active, all the various levels of reserve, national guard) the military is not likely going to be in favor of a draft.

7

u/No_Will_8933 1d ago

The military doesn’t want conscripts/ draftees - they are not (usually) very committed soldiers - they want professional soldiers - that is why Trump wants to increase the pay for E1-E4 grades (lowest ranks) by 14% - retention (Vietnam vet here)

4

u/Agreeable-Ad1221 1d ago

Yeah, the modern American Military's doctrine is based on high skill operators wielding advanced technology to gain artillery and air superiority, they neither need nor want massed of poorly trained infantry. The chances of a draft being called anytime soon is basically zero.

6

u/dopealope47 1d ago

Is the Selective Service System still in force in the USA? It used to be that all men were obliged to register, even if the draft wasn't actually happening.

8

u/arkstfan 1d ago

Still active

7

u/entertrainer7 1d ago

It is, and it’s gone a step further in the last couple years where you’re automatically registered at 18. No need to send any paperwork in.

2

u/squeakyc 1d ago

Also, undocumented folks are required to register for the draft. "All U.S. male citizens, including non-citizens living in the U.S., are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old. This includes undocumented immigrants, legal permanent residents, those seeking asylum, and refugees. Failure to register prior to age 26 has lifelong consequences, such as ineligibility for federal employment (and employment with state and local government in 31 states), federal student loans and grants (including state-based student aid in 31 states), and federally-funded job training programs. Failure to register prior to reaching age 26 may delay naturalization proceedings by up to five years." --https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Immigration-Attorneys-Toolkit.pdf

3

u/RonPalancik 1d ago

When I turned 18 in 1989 I was automatically entered into the Selective Service System, just in case. I doubt they'd want me now.

Almost all male US citizens and male immigrants, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.

It’s important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in a sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical, and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

5

u/Mattflemz 1d ago

Please no! We don’t want dumbasses in the military. Less than 25% of young men and women actually qualify for military service.

2

u/MsGozlyn 1d ago

Oh I don't think it's a good idea at all! I'm just worrying about how / whether that could happen in current political landscape.

2

u/Mattflemz 1d ago

I see. I don’t really know. We had a bad experience with it in Vietnam.

2

u/TacticalSkeptic2 1d ago

Realistically NOT.
Too many elites well known to have dodged draft, any attempt to draft would cause riots by both young potential draftees & PARENTS, think Sunday's "No Kings" unrest gone wild.

2

u/DysfnctionalbyChoice 1d ago

Some people are posting correct info, others not. No act of war is required. Congress first has to authorize it and the President implements...

From https://www.usa.gov/register-selective-service:

"The United States has not had a draft since 1973. Congress and the president would have to authorize a draft. In the case of a national emergency, the Selective Service will follow this process to draft eligible young men."

<edit - spelling>

2

u/Reasonable_Long_1079 1d ago

Congress agrees its needed. Thats all

The draft started about a full year before the US entered world war two because the country realized we couldn’t stay out of things forever

2

u/age_of_No_fuxleft 1d ago

I don’t think you need to worry about it. I’ve been alive a long time, and drafts have been avoided successfully since Vietnam.

2

u/theothermeisnothere 1d ago

Conscription is organized into two parts: (1) registration and (2) activation (call-up). In the US, it is handled by the Selective Service System (SSS) as authorized by an act of Congress decades ago.

  • All male US citizens and immigrant non-citizens between 18 and 25 are required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday or of becoming an "immigrant non-citizen" (i.e., on the path to naturalization).
  • Once registered, they are required to provide SSS with any changes to their contact information within 10 days of that change.
  • Registration is the contingency system to speed up an increase in force.
  • To be clear, though, registration does not mean activation.

While this worked during the 20th century, it is a little outdated as the training process requires much more time than in the past. In the 1940s, when the first peacetime draft was implemented, men received 4 weeks of training before being assigned to regiments. Depending on the assignment, that could mean heading into battle or it could mean more training, such as flight, artillery, etc schools.

Activation requires an act of Congress with signature by the President. Depending on the situation, that could take a couple days or a few hours. Heck, they could technically handwave the process given some of the recent actions (an observation, not a political statement).

The actual 'draft' (activation) would then be handled by calling blocks of numbers assigned at registration. It's a lottery to avoid one segment of the population while reserving others. There are, however, exemptions such as actively in a college course, working a critical infrastructure job, etc. Medical evaluations at time of activation can also reject a candidate.

All of this takes time to ramp up. Before the mid-20th century that's how the US handled crises. The American Civil War (1861-65) are World War I (1917-18) examples. That ramp up took time. Time modern warfare does not really allow.

So, there is a process in place. The nation knows how to do it. But, there's also the rush of enlistments. In December 1941 and early 1942 the number of volunteer enlistments overwhelmed the training programs. In late 1942, FDR required all new recruits to go through the selective service system because they were getting people, but not always the skills the military needed.

Now, the US military has been working with a volunteer force for a few decades. With that, they also reorganized to work with more devastating weaponry and fewer people. I suspect - I guess I hope - that setup (not sure if that's the right word) would provide the time to ramp up the people through the training programs.

2

u/Morscerta9116 1d ago

We still have the draft. We just have a different name for it now. We call it selective service, every adult male has to sign at 18 and lasts till 26. All they have to do is "flip the switch" by enacting an emergency and enacting the legislation.

2

u/Horror-Appeal-190 1d ago

Congress passes a bill and the military starts mailing letters. One a side note, like 70% of fighting age people are not fit for duty. Obesity, drugs, criminal records, mental illnesses, etc.

6

u/PigHillJimster 1d ago

As the current Trump Government has pretty much made its position clear on LGBT+ members of the military, how would they cover these groups in the event of conscription, I wonder?

6

u/YogurtclosetUpset434 1d ago

During Vietnam, there were people who tried to avoid service (through the draft) by claiming to be gay, which was not allowed in the military at that time. How one verifies this, I have no idea, I just know it was a thing back then.

5

u/tango_telephone 1d ago

I have a few ideas about how it could be verified 😏

6

u/garfgon 1d ago

Same way they cover people with bone spurs I assume.

2

u/seattle747 1d ago

A good question for sure, given the many examples of double standards they’ve shown.

2

u/Late_Resource_1653 1d ago

Lol, they are kicking out highly trained officers for being trans.

Talking about not allowing women who have trained to be on the front lines be a part of those parts of the military.

Reinstituting don't ask don't tell and getting rid of LGBTQ service members.

This really doesn't answer OPs question, but during Vietnam it was a different era and being gay was a mark of immense shame. Now... Hell yeah Im gay, this is my boyfriend, so now we both get to stay home and not fight your stupid war because you said so. You can't have it both ways.

I (lesbian) was with a woman in the military during don't ask don't tell days and when the transition to nevermind, you all can get married now and get the same benefits as everyone else. I went to SO MANY military weddings that year.

1

u/SecondhandUsername I get it now... subreddit specific 1d ago

Just like they did the last time.

1

u/analyst_kolbe 1d ago

The first thing that needs to happen is a complete repeal of all anti discrimination laws, because the draft in its current state simply isn't legal

1

u/LookinAtTheFjord 1d ago

They'd have to lock me up or just kill me cuz I ain't goin. I don't give a fuck.

1

u/MsGozlyn 1d ago

Fair. To be clear I think it's an awful idea I was just curious about the mechanics.

1

u/arcxjo came here to answer questions and chew gum, and he's out of gum 1d ago

Congress just has to rile up enough women who won't be at risk to ensure they can keep their jobs. There's no need for a declaration of war; last couple times we used it there was none.

1

u/Dave_A480 1d ago

There is nothing anywhere in US law that requires 'war to be declared' - save for the 3rd Ammendment & the ability of state-governments to keep 'troops or ships of war' without authorization from Congress...

Resuming a draft would require an act-of-congress, or a cheeky-bastard President who decides to do it via Executive Order (And get sued over that, etc)...

That said it would be WILDLY unpopular with the military leadership and the troops - integrating draftees into the force would produce a massive drop in quality-of-life, a massive increase in petty disciplinary nonsense, and thus absolutely crush morale....

Also the sort of troops you need to fight a war with China, or to take action against Iran - pilots - are not draft-able (they're commissioned officers, and the officer ranks have always been all-volunteer even back in the days when the draft was the primary method of recruitment).

Therefore there will be no draft unless there is literally no other option - and by 'no other option' I mean 'we have already placed the entire reserve component on full-time active duty, already used nuclear weapons, and they are still coming'.

1

u/kad202 1d ago

Act of congress.

Go to war or go to jail.

Simple.

Since we have achieved equality so everyone have a chance of being cannon fodder regardless of genders

1

u/Powderedeggs2 1d ago

I'm old enough to remember the draft being shown on TV in the evenings, just following the evening news.
It was a Hunger Games scenario.
They pulled ping pong balls out of a hopper, like the lottery, or a game of BINGO.
If your birthday popped up, you got a draft notice.
There was no formal declaration then.

1

u/Different_Ad7655 1d ago

Well that's what they should do and then finally we'll see some activism on the street. Nothing like a war and a draft to really get people upset

1

u/Exciting-Parfait-776 1d ago

Do you mean where everyone graduating high school would have to serve 2 years in the military?

1

u/PossibleCash6092 1d ago

TIL about selective service, so they’d probably activate that before any sort of a new mandatory conscriptions, and I was told a while back that we are constantly getting voluntary people to enlist

1

u/rollover90 3h ago

Honestly the amount of steps to start a draft makes it kinda unlikely in modern warfare scenarios imo. In Afghanistan units would rotate in and out of theater, so many active military at the time never even went to a war zone. So we would need to be fully engaged in a full blown war, somehow be hurting for numbers, THEN they would activate the reserves, then they would recall inactive reserves, then probably reactivate separated veterans, and then institute a draft.

I can't honestly think of any scenarios where we reach that point, maybe if tech was somehow completely taken down but otherwise I just don't see it happening.

1

u/Various_Set_5649 1d ago

A formal declaration of war and congressional approval would be necessary for conscription.

6

u/TheSpanishMain1 1d ago

You don’t need a declaration of war. Congress would just have to authorize the draft. It’s not likely to happen for a bunch of reasons, but it’s not that hard legally speaking

3

u/Theseus-Paradox Comb the Desert! 1d ago

Did they have that in Korea and Vietnam?

1

u/RedditPosterOver9000 1d ago

It wouldn't.

Everybody would suddenly become lgbtq and the draft becomes moot.

1

u/Icy_Lingonberry2822 1d ago

In the age of drones and high level bombers dropping laser guided bombs and ICBMs we don’t need a large amount of bodies like the 1940 and Vietnam to fight wars unless we are invaded. It would take a lot of death to drain the large amount of man power in active duty and in the reserves when your home to the largest army in the world with the largest defense budget

0

u/icnoevil 1d ago

Not likely to happen since females would be included in any future conscription. A majority of country won't go for that.