If there were a huge war and you were drafted what would you do?

[Corgis 574]

I would fight for sure.  I am not the best at following instructions under pressure but I could still be of some use I'm sure.   

[Snow 5,305]

defend to my last breath all facility's and staff that contribute to the production of MLP FIM (for the most part join the Canadian military) 

[Vulcan 3,254]

I wouldn't really like joining a war, Mostly due to the really really sad comic stories/ Anti-war propaganda that gets flown around the interwebs. I'd try to see if I could find a way out of it but if I couldn't , Then I guess I'd just go. 

[idunnomaybe 344]

If I was drafted then I'd go, it's my duty as a citizen. 

 

Edit: That is of course if it's for a just cause. WW2 was a just cause, some bs war with Russia over geopolitics I'd probably book a flight to Sweden. I love America and being an American and will fight for this country and what it stands for but lately we've been taking a nose dive in the morals and ideas that this country is supposed to stand for. 

Well these days the Draft is only for if the Nation is under direct attack so it would be a just cause in modern times the Draft is for very very dire situations 

[Envy 5,998]

I will not take part in the harming/killing of others. I would find any and every way to avoid it - including taking my own life if I had to.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,273]

I would probably find a way to Canada. I wouldn't be of any use to a war, as I just wouldn't be able to actively kill another person like that. I definitely wouldn't do that for this 'country'.

 

I guess I am really lucky to be automatically disqualified for military service then. Having a shunt has a silver lining.

[Kronos the Revenant 1,971]

If i was drafted, I would join up immediately for many reasons:
 

1. I'll be doing something worthwhile in my life for once

 

2. I'll be serving my country 

 

3. My nuclear family will finally have an army brat

 

4. I'll get in really good shape for once in my life

 

5. I'll be guaranteed either a job or, more importantly, a military scholarship--basically, veteran benefits

 

6. I've always wanted to try being in the army anyways

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

I honestly would be waiting for them to send me a letter. Damn recruiter wouldn't take a physically fit marksman who has been shooting for years because he is taking Adderal. I was essentially training for some sort of military service/private security for a good chunk of my life, I think it's super cool, and I would love to go and serve my country. I wouldn't be afraid of dying an honorable death if necessary.

[CT-1138 3,180]

I would do my duty and serve, even if I didn't agree with the war. 

[Vlazamal 338]

These days it is INCREDIBLY hard to join the military in the United States. Personally I am severely autistic, near-sighted, asthmatic, and they probably wouldn't allow me within 250 feet of classified data due to me being extremely vociferous in my support for the Russian Federation, so I'm covered in terms of not being in a draft.

 

If they did want me for some odd reason, they'd drop me after 5 seconds in PT. I am not a militant person.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Vlazamal

[Denim&Venöm 16,498]

Avoid it. I can serve better purposes on the home front. 

 

Also I don't appreciate my country taking away my freedom of choice and seeing me as expendable cannon fodder. It's not like America has the best track record with respect for it's veterans anyhow. 

 

Besides, I'm not so sure I would be very stable after partaking in an effort designed to end human lives. 

[Rainbow_Pepper 59]

It's really hard for me to imagine another WWII like war erupting in our generation. With globalization and the internet I just feel that the connections we have with people between differing country's and societies would make it very difficult for a conflict to escalate so far.

 

That said, I'm a optimist when it comes to humanity on that level. I don't think I'd be mentally capable of willingly fighting other sane humans in a war. Solders even those on the side of the enemy are just individuals doing what they are forced to do. It's the corrupt leaders of nations that start wars, not the soldiers. I don't know if I'd be able to make the disconnection between myself and a fellow man to fight for political reasons.The only exception I think would in a flash moment if I or someone near me was being attacked.

 

In terms of going to war on behalf of a military draft? I think I would resist in someway or another.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Rainbow_Pepper

[idunnomaybe 344]

It's the corrupt leaders of nations that start wars, not the soldiers. I don't know if I'd be able to make the disconnection between myself and a fellow man to fight for political reasons.

 

 

I'm sorry to single you out but this to me comes off as ignorant.

 

at no point are we told "you will guard this area because oil"

at no point are we told "you will secure this area because we want to capture and sell (insert narcotic)"

at no point are we told "do this because politics"   

 

firstly DO NOT throw every single Military in with America... 

 

secondly there are no conspiracies there are no cover ups there are no this there is no that the reasons the Military and the Government do not talk about what they are doing is because of obvious reasons... talking gets people killed... things like D-day and Gallipoli happened because there were no restrictions on what people could say and the Enemy would just have to read a newspaper to know what we were doing next 

 

you also need to take into account something else... the government does not fully control us... they ask "yeah can you do this" we do a risk assessment then act accordingly there was one example back in... 2005 i think? where Fiji was in such turmoil that the Australian government told the Army "nope they cant govern them selves just invade them and claim it as another slice of Australia" (and this was full on blitzkrieg invasion plan too) 

 

The Army refused... they said "no that's stupid and somewhat immoral we'll help but we'll do it in our own way"

 

and other shit like the Ghan one thing that pissed me off is "we're only in Afghanistan because of oil!"  NO! there is ZERO oil in Afghanistan there are no oil basins there im pretty sure oil wise its the driest country in the world "well then its drugs!" once again NO! if we find drugs we report it to local Authorities who either say they will deal with it them selves or they ask us to burn it down for them 

 

"corrupt politicians" once again NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! dude.... you see kids getting hacked up by machetes or millions dying from starvation because warlords take all the food and you want to help that's all i can say on that...   

 

  

[chocolate cake 114]

I'd try to avoid it. Move to Canada, make myself underweight or something.

 

Assuming that didn't work and I was still drafted since I'm a nurse hopefully they would take advantage of that and use me as a nurse in a field hospital or something. If I was thrown into the infantry, shooting myself in the foot to get out of combat would not be out of the question.

[Lektra Bolt 2,336]

I'm unfit to serve so they'd have to be pretty desperate to draft me. If they actually do insist on it I'd file as an objector and work in noncombat. I don't want to take lives and have what I call deathphobia. I'm afraid of losing my life and mortal situations, which is funny cause I'd actually like to reincarnate soon.

[Rainbow_Pepper 59]

 

 

I'm sorry to single you out but this to me comes off as ignorant.

 

at no point are we told "you will guard this area because oil"

at no point are we told "you will secure this area because we want to capture and sell (insert narcotic)"

at no point are we told "do this because politics"   

 

firstly DO NOT throw every single Military in with America... 

 

secondly there are no conspiracies there are no cover ups there are no this there is no that the reasons the Military and the Government do not talk about what they are doing is because of obvious reasons... talking gets people killed... things like D-day and Gallipoli happened because there were no restrictions on what people could say and the Enemy would just have to read a newspaper to know what we were doing next 

 

you also need to take into account something else... the government does not fully control us... they ask "yeah can you do this" we do a risk assessment then act accordingly there was one example back in... 2005 i think? where Fiji was in such turmoil that the Australian government told the Army "nope they cant govern them selves just invade them and claim it as another slice of Australia" (and this was full on blitzkrieg invasion plan too) 

 

The Army refused... they said "no that's stupid and somewhat immoral we'll help but we'll do it in our own way"

 

and other shit like the Ghan one thing that pissed me off is "we're only in Afghanistan because of oil!"  NO! there is ZERO oil in Afghanistan there are no oil basins there im pretty sure oil wise its the driest country in the world "well then its drugs!" once again NO! if we find drugs we report it to local Authorities who either say they will deal with it them selves or they ask us to burn it down for them 

 

"corrupt politicians" once again NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! dude.... you see kids getting hacked up by machetes or millions dying from starvation because warlords take all the food and you want to help that's all i can say on that...   

 

  

I understand your rebuttal, though I don't completely agree that there are no conspiracies within relatively good natured governments. 

 

That aside, I guess my comment was too generalized. My point was more focused on wars like WWII, and the comment on corruption itself was not directed at every government leader nor country. I also understand that whats going on in Afghanistan is not about oil and though I wont pretend to relate to such an experience you've had, I understand that the people there are stuck in the middle of the doings of REAL corrupt leaders (warlords). Likewise, my comment applies more towards the leaders like those of Nazi Germany or such warlords who by fear, force many common men into a wars a they do not wish to fight in, or propagate them into believing in.

 

I guess I should not reply to topics like this at 4 in the morning if clarity is important.

[Castle Bleck 19,166]

While I'm physically fit, I'm mentally and emotionally... not so much (Asperger's, anxiety, depression, etc.).

 

And the likelihood of PTSD, negative post-war prospects, etc., would only make me even more unwilling.

Edited August 3, 2016 by A.V.

[idunnomaybe 344]

I understand your rebuttal, though I don't completely agree that there are no conspiracies within relatively good natured governments. 

That, that's what i mean. 

 

there literally are no conspiracies everything is boring as shit. 

 

Ok put it this way

 

Army makes a base and no one can go near it so the Army tells everyone is a sensitive communications array however that doesn't sit well with the public i mean why would they keep a giant radio secret?

 

real reason? do you want to really know the truth?

its just a communications array reason why its secret is because its new tech and if the enemy can get even just pictures of it they can find a way to reverse engineer it or jam its frequency

 

 

and Area 51?

experimental aircraft shocking i know

 

 

you go into this job thinking you will find James bonds and Ghost Recon and Aliens but its as boring as it seems

Edited August 2, 2016 by idunnomaybe

[Grtxkkyz 387]

Welp, Off to Mexico/Canada!

Wouldn't be of much help, given that our good friend Mr. Trump is all to willing to declare war on Mexico if we refuse to pay for his wall if he manages to rise to power, that is. 

If WW3 were to start soon, truth is, i'm utterly unfit. But yeah, i'd have to go anyway to protect my country, cause if i don't, i'll be labeled a traitor for my home...

Edited August 2, 2016 by Dino-Mario

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

talking gets people killed... things like D-day and Gallipoli happened because there were no restrictions on what people could say and the Enemy would just have to read a newspaper to know what we were doing next 

 

Gallipoli went badly for numerous reasons, but D-Day was a remarkable success due in no small part to the use of the Double-Cross system - which was an exceptionally well kept secret (along with the breaking of German codes etc.)

 

at no point are we told "do this because politics"   

 

But war is all about politics - the use of force to achieve a goal, such as coercing a target nation into cooperation*. No-one needs to be told that, it's implicit in the very existence of armed forces. Now the goal can be purely altruistic, the goal can be entirely focused on promoting the interests of the country or, as is usually the case, the former is used as justification whilst the latter is the strong motive, or at least the catalyst. The Second World War was a good example of both - it was in the UK's interests to contain the power of Germany, and removing Hitler from power was also an altruistic goal.

 

To tie this back into the subject, I think that a lot of people are saying no because they believe that, as a country is acting in its own interests, the politicians are corrupt and that nothing good will come of military action. And, after the mess that is the situation in Iraq, I can see where they're coming from. The rebuttal to this that I would offer is that so long as there is accountability the government is encouraged to achieve altruistic goals alongside the goals that promote the interests of the country.

 

*self-defence falls into this category - the use of force to repulse the force of others, with the goal of having decision-making free of the coercion of others. 

 

That, that's what i mean. 

 

there literally are no conspiracies everything is boring as shit. 

 

The top secret letters between Blair and Bush are actually a very interesting read when it comes to putting events leading up to the invasion of Iraq into context.

 

Ok, I agree with you that there are no US-detained aliens or chemtrails or nonsense like that, but there are 'conspiracies' in that not everything that a government says is true - or, when it is, is sometimes phrased in such a way as to mislead; the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War gives excellent examples of this. The British, French and Israeli efforts in Suez is another good example of a textbook conspiracy.  

Edited August 3, 2016 by Once In A Blue Moon

[idunnomaybe 344]

Edited: NO! bad Dunno, stop putting logic into hypotheticals, spray, spray, spray. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by idunnomaybe

[Invincible 2,090]

I'd work my butt off and do my best, do my part to win the war. Running away when your friends and family are fighting is cowardice.

[Anneal 2,194]

But war is all about politics - the use of force to achieve a goal, such as coercing a target nation into cooperation*. No-one needs to be told that, it's implicit in the very existence of armed forces. Now the goal can be purely altruistic, the goal can be entirely focused on promoting the interests of the country or, as is usually the case, the former is used as justification whilst the latter is the strong motive, or at least the catalyst. The Second World War was a good example of both - it was in the UK's interests to contain the power of Germany, and removing Hitler from power was also an altruistic goal.

 

To tie this back into the subject, I think that a lot of people are saying no because they believe that, as a country is acting in its own interests, the politicians are corrupt and that nothing good will come of military action. And, after the mess that is the situation in Iraq, I can see where they're coming from. The rebuttal to this that I would offer is that so long as there is accountability the government is encouraged to achieve altruistic goals alongside the goals that promote the interests of the country.

 

The younger generation tends to feel that way, not just because of Iraq, but because of many other wars in the last...fifty years that had far less clear purposes and goals. Americans have been disillusioned since Vietnam, and the ghost of the Cold War still lingers in their minds. They're far more critical of politicians, the military, and government in general than ever before. It's mostly a never-ending cycle where more and more distrust fosters more and more hate. 

 

Patriotism and the like is dying in the millennial generation. 

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

The younger generation tends to feel that way, not just because of Iraq, but because of many other wars in the last...fifty years that had far less clear purposes and goals.

 

I'm not so sure - the US had Vietnam, which I understand that many associate with conscription, but the UK didn't have that. The Falklands, the Gulf War and the intervention in Sierra Leone were mostly popular and all successful actions where the general perception (in the UK at least) was that we were on the right side. It was efforts Iraq and Afghanistan that undermined what had otherwise been a fairly successful run of well-justified wars.

 

 

 

Patriotism and the like is dying in the millennial generation. 

 

Blind patriotism may well be dying in the modern age, and I think that's no bad thing. If the population are going to be highly cynical about military action, then it only reinforces the need for the government to show the benefits of it.

 

In that sense, I suppose it isn't possible to answer this thread's question without more context - a war such as the one in Vietnam would clearly lead a lot of opposition to conscription, whereas Soviet tanks rolling through West Germany and into France would have received much wider support.

 

 

EDIT: I can't believe I forgot this, given its relevance, but both Lithuania and Latvia (and I think a few others) currently use conscription due to concerns about Russia, as does South Korea due to concerns about North Korea. It would seem that having a significant threat nearby is enough for countries to introduce conscription. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Once In A Blue Moon

[Anneal 2,194]

Blind patriotism may well be dying in the modern age, and I think that's no bad thing. If the population are going to be highly cynical about military action, then it only reinforces the need for the government to show the benefits of it.

 

In that sense, I suppose it isn't possible to answer this thread's question without more context - a war such as the one in Vietnam would clearly lead a lot of opposition to conscription, whereas Soviet tanks rolling through West Germany and into France would have received much wider support.

 

EDIT: I can't believe I forgot this, given its relevance, but both Lithuania and Latvia (and I think a few others) currently use conscription due to concerns about Russia, as does South Korea due to concerns about North Korea. It would seem that having a significant threat nearby is enough for countries to introduce conscription. 

 

I have lived in Taiwan before, and I can add that a lot of people here are pretty comfortable with being conscripted, especially with the significant threat of China invading the island. When the government attempted to abolish it in 2014 an overwhelming amount of Taiwanese people opposed it. Most attempts to deal with conscription has been heavily delayed; they tried to make an all-volunteer military by 2013 but failed. Basic training for draftees have been shortened significantly, however, from 12 months to 4. 

 

Also, people who aren't fit for general conscription do an "alternate service" for 6 months (ex: public clinics, rural teachers, volunteer police officers) instead. And those with dual citizenship don't have to serve if it's shown they aren't staying in Taiwan for more than 4 months (though it's been loopholed frequently by these citizens since they enter with their U.S. passports, not Taiwan, and registering at airport customs as a "non-citizen"). 

 

Most Americans seem to hate the Selective Service we have here, though. At least from what I see. Some here hate and blame the military in general...I mean, Michael Moore does that.