In practice, it's young men of lower socioeconomic statuses that are failing to register. This is due to lack of knowledge or presence in the system more than conscientious objection. e.g. Prison or being homeless.
Many choose to get their life together in their late 20s and 30s, only to find out they can't get job training or student aid. These are legislatively mandated penalties and cannot be unilaterally removed by the current administration.
There's no clause for late signups outside of that window.
The only way out is to prove that you didn't know, which is difficult. There's about 40,000 people a year requesting the paperwork to appeal their loss of benefits.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/02/failin...
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...
The merits of such a system do exist. However, the public will withdraw political support for benefits if the number of covered individuals is very low.
Thank you!
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.
Citation heavily needed. When I was a junior non-com, my civilian colleagues made way more than I did, even including the (quite nice) military benefits, even when ignoring the fact that 80 hour workweeks are commonplace on deployment.
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 Selective service System is required by law to maintain readiness to activate either of two types of draft: a "cannon fodder" draft of males 18-25, or a "Health Care Personnel Delivery System" for men and women up to age 45 in 57 occupations: https://medicaldraft.info
Congress could decide to expand the latter to other non-medical occupations as a broader "special skills" draft.
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.
You'll need to pay people not to defect, desert or try to get their family asylum somewhere that isn't a warzone. That, or you force them through conscription.
There's a lot worth fighting for, it's just not the particular people we've been fighting.
I would say WW2 was pretty long time ago, none of the latter US wars was about thing you mention, everyone serving in following wars were not soldiers but mercenaries.
Btw. why you need army to defend your own family? Also your family is more likely to be hurt by your fellow citizen than some foreign soldier.
The obvious difference is that you cannot quit.
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
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.
Department of Defense*
https://hasbrouck.org/draft/repeal.html
More on what femninists say about the dratt and draft registration: https://hasbrouck.org/draft/women/feminism.html
Here's why this won't work and is such a bad idea, and why dozens of organizations have already issued a joint call to "repeal* the Military Selective Service Act instead of trying to step up preparations for a draft:
https://hasbrouck.org/draft/automatic/
and
After 30 years in FL working with and around these social systems, what is obvious that this approach locks out those in actual need in favor of those with the abilities to game a heavily one-sided system.
A staggering number of people enlisted or re-enlisted after a break in service due to 9/11 and patriotic ideas. (... And then more than half ended up getting sent to Iraq.)
a doctor or nurse who doesn't want to be there will half ass it and people will die.
if you want a functional, quality organization that could expand you pay for decent talent now, knowing that it may get watered down later
Things had been kinda quiet for the last couple of decades. We continue involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but didn't start new ones. We even pulled out of those by five years ago. So yes, definitely, we did a lot more warring with the Department of War.
Longer term, the "Department of Defense" got into an awful lot of wars from its name change in 1947. The Department of War might have more wars on a per-day basis in its short time under that name, but not a lot more.
But really, the answer to your question is "yes". We decided we wanted to do a lot more war, and we branded the department to go along with it.
I'd be really grateful if it stopped.
why hasn't it?
Varys reveals that power resides where men believe it resides, explaining that authority is a "mummer's trick" or a shadow that exists only because people accept the illusions of kings, priests, and the wealthy. While the sellsword physically survives to execute the killing, the riddle illustrates that true power is not inherent in any single figure but is created by collective belief and obedience.
The Characters: The king represents law, the priest represents religion, and the rich man represents wealth, while the sellsword represents the people or the military force. The Core Message: No matter how much gold, divine favor, or legal claim one possesses, their power is null without the belief and support of the common people. The Twist: Varys notes that the sellsword is "no one," emphasizing that power is fluid and can be seized by anyone who commands the loyalty of those with the means to enforce it.
Pick up any non fiction book about US foreign policy written before 1947 and you'll commonly see "War Department" or even "War Office".
Let's look at an E-9 Master Chief, the highest enlisted rank. Their basic pay is $9267 a month[0]. If they're in for 30 years, and get the High-36 retirement plan[1], then they get 75% of that — $6950/mo — afterward. That's certainly not chump change.
However, the kind of person with the drive, leadership skills, political savvy, and work ethic to become a Master Chief would rise to least a director or VP, or a senior VP, at a civilian company. So yes, their military retirement's quite good, but at a substantial opportunity cost.
To be super clear, my main argument is that the military should earn more, especially for the sheer amount of work they put in. They earn it.
I don't deny that servicemembers earn their pay. There is a premium to accepting the upheaval of a cross-country move every 3 years. But to assert that the average E-9 is equivalent to a director or VP position is incorrect. People of that rank are told in TAP to accept positions of perceived lower authority. Those who are successful in going from E-8 or E-9 to Director or VP roles are extraordinarily rare.
For your individual experience, consider the years of experience and education of your contractor / DA civilian counterparts. Furthermore, consider your CZTE and danger pay. It's possible that your individual experience might have you earning less in pro-rated annual income during deployments. Does that also apply when you were in garrison? Did it account for your free occupational training (that you were paid to attend)? Tricare? Tuition assistance?
The fact you're even posting on the orange site to begin with implies you received some expensive training that would ordinarily require a university degree.
1. https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/...
That is quite a leap.
Yeah, it's an interesting footnote in my biography, but didn't have much relevance to my career arc after I got out.
Private Dumbfuck will get paid more on a per-year basis than the average Walmart worker, esp. when you take in to account medical coverage and training benefits in service and out (e.g. GI Bill)
on a hourly basis... maybe not -- they can work Pvt Df 24/7 an that will water down the per-hour takehome. But said Private will have the pride of wearing a uniform and being able to say they did their service, while no one will flog their experience of being a Wal-Mart drone.