Posted on Feb 25, 2019
All-male military draft ruled unconstitutional by federal judge in Texas
3.39K
67
24
18
18
0
Looks like this item is finally going full circle. What do you think of women being required to register for Selective Service? Has it's time finally come?
All-male military draft ruled unconstitutional by federal judge in Texas
Posted from foxnews.com
Selective Service (the Draft)
Government
Women in the Military
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
Assumptions:
1) If the draft were to be activated, we are already in a shooting match, or are anticipating a shooting match with high casualty rates.
2) The powers that be do not think we will be able to meet manpower requirements to ensure victory with an all-volunteer force.
3) The draft would be “gender neutral” and represent the American population. (51% female, 49% male)
4) MOS assignment would be “gender neutral” and roughly 51% of those assigned to any given MOS (including combat arms) would be female.
5) A driving factor in opening combat arms MOS’s to women was equality of opportunity.
6) A restraining factor to opening combat arms MOS’s to women was concerns about combat effectiveness. (Does anyone wish to argue that physicality is not germane to combat effectiveness?)
We can argue about it all day long, but a survey across the potential draftee pool would show a higher level of physicality (specifically Physical Strength, Endurance under a load, and speed under a load) amongst men in comparison to women. There would obviously be some outliers.
Equality of opportunity is a compelling and overriding government interest.
Combat effectiveness is a compelling and overriding government interest.
Which compelling and overriding government interest takes precedence?
If RP admin choses to delete this comment AGAIN, please have the courtesy of explaining why this is not a legitimate question deserving of discussion on the web site?
1) If the draft were to be activated, we are already in a shooting match, or are anticipating a shooting match with high casualty rates.
2) The powers that be do not think we will be able to meet manpower requirements to ensure victory with an all-volunteer force.
3) The draft would be “gender neutral” and represent the American population. (51% female, 49% male)
4) MOS assignment would be “gender neutral” and roughly 51% of those assigned to any given MOS (including combat arms) would be female.
5) A driving factor in opening combat arms MOS’s to women was equality of opportunity.
6) A restraining factor to opening combat arms MOS’s to women was concerns about combat effectiveness. (Does anyone wish to argue that physicality is not germane to combat effectiveness?)
We can argue about it all day long, but a survey across the potential draftee pool would show a higher level of physicality (specifically Physical Strength, Endurance under a load, and speed under a load) amongst men in comparison to women. There would obviously be some outliers.
Equality of opportunity is a compelling and overriding government interest.
Combat effectiveness is a compelling and overriding government interest.
Which compelling and overriding government interest takes precedence?
If RP admin choses to delete this comment AGAIN, please have the courtesy of explaining why this is not a legitimate question deserving of discussion on the web site?
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
This comment got deleted? Or was it deemed too inflammatory.
Whatever, I will give you my two cents.
Give me a group a bubbas, regardless of gender, and proper time and resources and I can train them to be combat effective. I can make them superior with additional time and resources, but a draft scenario probably precludes that possibility. I think I speak for every NCO with anything in his/ her rucksack when I say that.
If it came down to a war like that, where we are reinstating the draft, sign me up for the first unit we train to join the fight. It is my duty as a Veteran to bring as much of that hard-won knowledge to our young men and women before sending them to fight and die, if necessary. And yes, I would happily and enthusiastically go with them. I might be getting long in the tooth as a Soldier, But I am a mean mother***er that our enemies do not want any part of messing with.
Your logic is sound sir, and lots of smart people have bantied this about. But I think if it came to WWIII, all hands are on deck or we ain't winning. China isn't going to run out of manpower.
Whatever, I will give you my two cents.
Give me a group a bubbas, regardless of gender, and proper time and resources and I can train them to be combat effective. I can make them superior with additional time and resources, but a draft scenario probably precludes that possibility. I think I speak for every NCO with anything in his/ her rucksack when I say that.
If it came down to a war like that, where we are reinstating the draft, sign me up for the first unit we train to join the fight. It is my duty as a Veteran to bring as much of that hard-won knowledge to our young men and women before sending them to fight and die, if necessary. And yes, I would happily and enthusiastically go with them. I might be getting long in the tooth as a Soldier, But I am a mean mother***er that our enemies do not want any part of messing with.
Your logic is sound sir, and lots of smart people have bantied this about. But I think if it came to WWIII, all hands are on deck or we ain't winning. China isn't going to run out of manpower.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
1SG (Join to see) - I agree with your comment here and would emphasize that you are right with "China isn't going to run out of manpower." And what that also means is that China is going to be defeated by a draft. We could draft everyone in the country and still not defeat them in a man to man contest. We have to keep them in the water and off the shores.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Add the new Gender Neutral and MOS specific PT test to the Draft Boards existing Medical Test and according to the Army we should be OK since the new gender neutral PT test effectively screens who is qualified to do tasks in what MOS.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google