Pillager - 2015-11-24
It's good to be too old to be drafted.
|
|
|
|
EvilHomer - 2015-11-24 Well, first off, the draft was only limited because the war in Vietnam was limited. A war against Russia would be several orders of magnitude larger than anything we've seen in our lifetimes, so the idea that conscription should have a cut-off age will probably go out the window. The military accepts new recruits clear into their forties, and people with prior government work experience, fifty or older. Thirty-three is a fine age to die.
Second, right wing hawks might not want a draft, but they aren't in power right now, and left wing hawks should have no problem. Remember, the biggest wars of the 20th century were fought under "progressive" presidents, while the current administration has racked up more mini-wars than any other ruling group since Roman times.
And finally, third, I hate to say it, but if war comes with Russia, then getting drafted is going to be the least of your worries. Missiles and nukes and widespread starvation as the result of a throttled international oil supply, they don't discriminate. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say you might WANT to get drafted, into the Coast Guard for example, because at least then you know that the US government will make your continued survival a top priority - or at least a secondary priority, after the survival of any friends and family of the politically-connected elite. When Fallout: IRL begins, you want to be sure to have a spot that's as high on the social triage list as possible.
|
EvilHomer - 2015-11-24 That said, fuck Russia. If they want a fight, then may Odin grant us victory.
|
|
Old_Zircon - 2015-11-24 I can't speak for the USA, but I've been reading Akenfield and in the UK during WWI they were conscripting people in their mid 30s by the end of the war. It's certainly not unprecedented.
|
|
|
|
infinite zest - 2015-11-24 Oh well, if they do reinstate the draft it'll get sent to my ex wife's house thousands of miles away. Ah the joys of never getting fully divorced. Nobody knows where I live :D
|
Bobonne - 2015-11-24
If the US won't get involved to the extent of putting non-spook soldiers on the ground in Syria, they sure as fuck aren't going to get into a land war with Russia.
Christ, this place is getting almost as credulous as /pol/.
|
Old_Zircon - 2015-11-24 We are 100% serious about it.
|
Bobonne - 2015-11-24 Sorry. Just a few too many chicken littles running around today for my taste, I guess.
(Besides, if you'd be reduced to Bakker's Buckets, wouldn't being obliterated at ground zero be a preferable fate?)
|
SolRo - 2015-11-25 Unfortunately I've recently moved too far from any military base to be in the obliteration radius. (There's a map overlay you can use! It even has all the popular nuclear warheads preloaded)
|
TeenerTot - 2015-11-25 As a child of the Cold War (the "Day After" era), I've learned that the most optimistic view is to hope the missile lands on me.
|
Old_Zircon - 2015-11-25 I should check that map, the last one I saw was from some Reagan era report on nuclear weapons. Not that I need to, I'm right between Boston and New York, I'd have no chance.
|
SolRo - 2015-11-25 Unless you're pretty much living next to a military target or the center of a major city, the odds of a quick and painless death in a nuclear Armageddon are slim. Most of the deaths will be from burns, building collapses and fire (maybe a combination of all 3)...if you live through that, you might die of radiation poisoning.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
|
Register or login To Post a Comment |