Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Plans Targeted Draft for Computer Personnel
waytoomuchcoffee writes "The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'. There is already a system in place to draft health care personnel, and this system would be expanded in order to 'rapidly register and draft' computer specialists."
It's about a MILITARY DRAFT. One of the exemptions from draft is type 1 diabetes.
Just say you don't know how to use Microsoft products.
While this has been the case with large IT groups within large governmental organizations in the past, this is starting to change within certain groups like subsets of the Department of Homeland Security and groups within the FBI and CIA. A number of those folks are going to other platforms like OS X for security reasons, convenience, management and hardware infrastructure like Altivec which can speed up cryptography significantly. Of course some of the older guys know Nextstep quite well and were fans of the NeXT boxes when they were de-rigeur at the NSA and places in the CIA and are quite happy with OS X.
Linux has also made big strides in places, particularly the TRUSTED flavors.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Enlist in the Air Force. Technical proficiency is practically a requirement.
My words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
If you have a bachelor's degree, then you should start out as an officer. A 2nd lieutenant makes about $27,000. If you have a degree in computer science and don't suck, you will get promoted very quickly.
Best Slashdot comment ever
Same in China too. Creation of strong and glorious brotherhood came about, and now all people live equally according to skills. There are grave problems here and there, but all things being equal is a better way to manage.
Don't get me wrong, the US should NOT become like China. Strong states is very good, but free and strong states is one million times as good as the lame Chinese system.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Type 1 diabetes is a particular problem for the military, because if for some reason you're unable to get insulin within ~24 hour period, you're screwed.
From the 14th Amendment
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Don't forget that the $27,000 is just your base bay. On top of that you either live on base for free(including electricity and water), or get a housing allowence which changes depending on where you are and your rank, and family. Plus health and dental on top of that.
That's right.
Nobody's going to revive the draft.
Just like nobody's going support Patriot II.
I mean, this is America. That can't happen here
- - - Patent applied for and deliver us from evil
There is a 'fat boys' program in all branches of the military. They force you to do the two things that most dieters can't (they typically only do one): excercise -and- reduce calorie intake.
Picture waking up at 4 every morning to "I'm gonna make you strong!".
At the same time, if the country is in grave danger, say for example she's being invaded, I would gladly volunteer.
If I have to dodge the draft, I will escape to Thailand, India or Mars
Nothing to see here
I wonder how 'quick' a call up of drafted computer specialist could be. To touch a government computer system anywhere requires at minimum a SECRET clearance. Most positions (like those that would probably be filled by drafted specialist) would most likely need TOP SECRET /TS SCI clearances at minimum.
:)
These investigations take from 1 to 3 years and in this case would be largely involuntary.
Just drink underage or smoke some pot in front of the people that you plan to reference on your clearance paper work.
I was in the AF 5 or 6 years ago. I joined up as a programmer. You could be a programmer or an operator. Programmers could only go to England, Australia, Hawaii and certain (nice) bases in the continental US. Operators could end up anywhere there was a computer, possibly in forward positions, definitely in the middle of the desert in Saudi Arabia.
I thought I had made out great but shortly after my training was complete they changed all the rules and any programmer not actually programming day to day was instantly an operator. Since at that time the policy was to buy all new software off the shelf I wasn't programming (shell scripts don't count).
The point is that you can't count on anything once you are in. The rules change day to day and moment to moment. Also a lot of people in the "safe" Saudi cities away from the front died in the first Gulf war due to Scuds.
Finally, considering the amount of hi-tech equipment becoming standard, a programmer might find himself in a tent in Syria doing maintenance on a Tank or in the jungle in the Philipines fixing a soldiers heads up display.
Actually the army PFT is based on push ups, situps, and a 2 mile run. Pull ups are required for entry into ranger school, but they otherwise aren't a factor. There are however height&weight/body fat requirements.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
They're there because antiwar Democarats are trying to drum up public sentiment against Bush in any way possible.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Wrongo. I had to register with selective service after I came off active duty with the army despite the fact I was already in the IRR for another four years.
I think you mean "mute". Moot isn't a word.
Moot:
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2. 1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
Yes, below market, but it depends on your definition of "far." They won't be paying you any less than those of equivalent rank--for a university graduate level specialty it's going to mean at least a warrant officer's billet--looking at the military pay scale (at least for 2002) that's around $25k/yr, a lot more than minimum wage. A general draft for E-1s pays them (again in 2002) $13272/yr, again more than minimum wage. You aren't going to starve.
You mean because you can't opt out of it? I don't think this is equivalent to slavery. As citizens, there are several obligations we have to the government, some of them onerous: like taxes. This is just one of them--a particularly onerous one--but since it's temporary and reasonably humane I don't think you can compare it to slavery.
demi
It would be a mistake to assume you have skills that will keep you off a battlefield. That is why medical problems will can keep somebody completely out of the military.
I wanted to write a slashdot story about this, but the Selective Service is dead serious about a draft and so is the president. I have in my posession an application to be on the draft board in my county, mailed to me by the Selective Service. YES, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE IS RESTAFFING DRAFT BOARDS. If thats not a wakeup call I dont know what the fuck is.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
For HR.163, go here and type hr 163 into the "Bill Number" field.
You can add DoD and the Army to that list. Army is experimenting with embedded Linux in some battlefield com and data systems, which are pretty cool, btw.
OS X is picking up in popularity with the intelligence and security types, as you mentioned, but also in some of the research fields like high energy physics
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
My point here is that the rationale that the US invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons is demonstorably false. If the US government had cared about the plight of the victims of Hussein's government they wouldn't have given him all the money and technology they did. Since we have established that the US government gave him aid while it was aware of his behavior we can only conclude that there is a non-humanitarian reason for the invasion.
Don't misunderstand, one less evil bastard in the word is a good thing. But the US government continues to persue a policy of giving money and technology to similar evil bastards (the thugs in charge of Uzbekistan, for example). Thus the procolamations of concern for the Iraqi people can only be a rather revoltingly hypocritical smokescreen to try and hide their true motives.
Just *what* the true motives of the US government are I won't pretend to know, but I will say that its quite obvious that their stated motives are not what's really pushing policy. I suspect that the real motives are a mixture of economic desires (oil), military foreward planning (Iraq is centrally located, thus stragetically valuable), and distraction ("don't worry about the economy, there's a war on!"). That's merely what I suspect, but there can be no doubt that humanitarian reasons are not the cause for the war.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Yes, but this isn't a general draft. The conscripts will be coding, not fighting. You don't need to be particularly fit to do that ;)
And yes, what is next IS the general draft. They have already hired all the required personel for the local draft boards. Spent $28 million to get the draft ready to begin no later than June 15th, 2005. What's that? They need congressional approval? Read Bills S 89 and HR 163. They would have been in the news, but they had just caught Saddam so it never made the cut...
It's not the entire country, though. Just able bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 26...unless they've change that range. And yes, it is co-ed now ;) And if you are a student, or a farmer...you arn't excluded this time. If you want a drivers licence, or if you attended public school, you are already registered. Although if they got your name, address, and phone number from your school, you had the opportunety for your parents to opt you out, but the schools are not required to inform you of that option, or even that they are giving your information to the government. If schools do not comply, they lose government funding.
And as for "for their entire life" no, just 30 years. You see, many of the troops, reserves, and National Guard in Iraq (est 43%) are not planning to reenlist. Unfortunatly, they have been "stop gapped" back into service anyways; many of them whose tours were supposed to end in 2003 or 2004 have found they NOW end in 2030. And yes, the war will still be going on in 2030. Bush himself has said he expects The War on Terror to drag on for several more decades at the minimum. I mean, they have only toppled 2 nations so far, and they still have Iran, Libya and Syria to topple, not to mention North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
don't exactly involve having to do real combat. I imagine you'll be operating things from proxy.
Yeah, that's what they told Shoshana Johnson, who thought all she would do was cook in the mess hall.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.
e 51 46.htm
The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
1. Nice try. The 13th Amendment has been interpreted to specifically not include serving on juries or being drafted by the military for over 100 years. These are part of your duties as a citizen. Do a Google search on "13th Amendment" and "military."
2. Leave. Bye. See ya. Good riddance, coward.
Yeah, I was a comm geek. Didn't stop me from spending time in the hospital recuperating from a firefight. Trust me, it doesn't matter what level of geek you are -- you'll still learn to run-n-staff for every one combat arms soldier. You think that the Army will let you sit on your ass in an air-conditioned bunker because you know how gun just like the rest of the grunts, and you'll still be put in that situation, regardless of your MOS? Why? Because there are 11 support to bust out mad C++? Think again. Jessica Lynch was a supply clerk, after all...
blog |
That court decision was made in 1981. The primary justification for that decision was rules banning women from engaging in combat, and the findings of a board that the people most needed by a draft would be combat troops.
While some combat roles may be still banned to women (as in, I'm not sure whether this is the case), others are definitely not. As of 1991, the Navy lifted this ban with respect to air combat. I suspect all of the military branches, allow women to engage in combat in at least this capacity, since I know that there were combat helicopter units with female members way back in Gulf War I.
I'm sure that lawsuits would be filed if the draft was re-instituted again, and I'm not sure that the ruling would not be changed.
Frankly, I think that women should either face the same possibility of a draft that men do, or be faced with losing the ability to vote. If a woman wants be an 1800s-style protected housewife instead of a full member of society, fine, but neither should she be accorded the privileges of said member of society.
May we never see th
That's not necessarily true.
If you'll take a look at fine sites like this one, this one or possibly this one, you will see that there is little doubt that should Bush get re-elected, we will have, at least, a limited draft instated by early 2005. If you don't follow the other links, I suggest this one. especially if you have a 17-18 year old son OR daughter.
As to the obvious reason that this is going to happen, well you might start looking here; even though the military is basically not letting ANYONE out these days, time up or not, they aren't in my opinion going to be able to meet the numbers due to missed targets.
My word of advice (and I volunteered, was in Gulf War lite, so screw anyone who says I'm not a patriot) is that if you have a boy or girl who are in high school, and they do NOT fully support the policies of the current administration, have them drop out if Bush gets reelected; the current system doesn't take people without high school diplomas, and it'll take them awhile to change the rules.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
You, Sir, Are on crack.
I'm currently a member of the US Air Force. There's currently a program in place not only to let people out, but to let us out AHEAD of schedule. Aparently, for some odd reason, about 2-3 years ago, recruiting went through the roof, and now the Air Force is manned above what it's currently authorized by law. This Force Shaping program is the first stage in getting down to the target manning levels.
They are allowing personel out in almost all career fields, Including computer oriented ones. If this doesn't reduce down to the needed levels, they'll start refusing re-enlistments and forcing retirements. I don't know about the other branches, but round here, people are most definately able to leave.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
like this?
I've read the official rapport of the german military on gender. This rapport was published in 1999 to prepare the officers for the arrival of women into the combat units after an European Supreme Court decision.
:
:
:
This rapport was mainly based on studies made by the american military. Their conclusions
The best amount of woman in a group is between 20% and 50%. Too few women actually DO distract men which will somewhat dispute over them. More women make the situation "normal" enough to stop this behavior. Too much women somewhat seams to lower the efficiency of the group though.
While a little weaker, women have more stamina than man which makes up for the lack of strength.
I think there were some more stats on the differences, but I have forgotten them since. Particulary, there was a section on menstruation and related problems that I dont remember in detail.
The rapport goes on on practical problems like
There is generally only one shower room in german barracks, so some timeshift policy has to be applied.
When doing a surprise inspection of the dorms, a male officier has to knock first and wait a bit before entering a women's dorm. (What's the point of a surprise inspection if you have the time to hide the booze first? (j/k))
The personal should be instructed to drop their dirty jokes (Ha, I'd like to know if this ever worked, it IS the military, after all).
And so on. There was also an section on relationships between soldiers. While relations with subordinates where forbidden, I do no longer remember the rules for relationships on the same level.
It also cited some common fears, beside distraction, there was also
The fear that women act hysterical in critical combat situations. Empirical evidence however, does not support that.
Another fear would be that men act overly protective of women, trying to keep them out of harm and engage in foolish rescue missions that they would never have done for a male comrade.
This seams to be more of a problem, but can be fixed with proper training.
Sidenote : I would take it with a grain of salt, as this is based on american studies and the american army is known to engage in foolish rescue missions anyway, as is it a political succes and a moral boost for the troup if you rescue any soldier (male or female) from the ennemy, even if half of the rescue team dies.
And that's what I remember from this rapport.
Disclaimer : As I wrote this from memory and read it five years ago, there might be some factual errors in my post.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
There are 4 or 5 comments I wanted to drop these links into, I'll just stick them out here.
"We see the direct link between registration, the draft, and aggressive war."
"Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft"
"Help Oppose Hollins and Rangel's Draft!"
No I am not a Liberitarian, but they have some interesting points on this issue. I remember being freaked out about registering for the "SS" when I was 18. -Scared of being forced to fight somebody elses war if I did... and horrified of the things they said would happen if I did not (not qualifying for school loans being one of them).
There's currently a program in place not only to let people out [of the military], but to let us out AHEAD of schedule
Right, that's exactly why they need a DRAFT. Becuase too many of the volunteers are saying "hey, you know what, this is a raw deal" and punching out when their 2 years are up.
It's pretty well established that the numbers in the active service and esp. the reserves are dwindling. Not that I'd expect much else considering how our govt. has reduced veterans benefits tremendously over the past few years.
The Air Force doesn't take draftees. The draft is only for the purpose of bolstering the ranks of the Army. So the question is, did the Army experience the same overrecruitment? Given how much I see them trying to recruit on campus, I doubt it.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
With the exception of Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist strikes, the US has not had a conflict on our soil for about 150 years. You wonder why? The reason is because of our military force being what it is, not because of Alan Greenspan. If foreign forces and military powers ever attempt to make way into the US, you can run to Greenspan, I'll run to the Military.
There are lots of ways to serve one's country and it doesn't always mean to go and kill and possibly die
I agree 100% but comparing Greenspan to a soldier is not apples to oranges. People that put their own LIFE on the line for others on a daily basis or even just one strategic time get observed, recognized and noticed by a majority of society for that sacrifice. You may feel that the extra recognition is unjust or not required but I think the majority of people do when they consider it could have been them that had to do it. If Greenspan slips up one time, he collects his thoughts, learns and moves on. If a firefighter, policeman, or someone in combat slips up, there may not be a second chance.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Saying that "I don't have an obligation to my country" (like many of the people in this discussion have) and comparing the draft to slavery is disgusting.
I was in the military and I'm 100% against the draft. The only point of a draft in this day and age is to avoid paying a fair market value for the labor. The whole point of this nonsence is to avoid increasing taxes. Here's some food for thought, quoted from a statement by congressman Ron Paul (Republican):
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: " Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."
Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: "...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.
Someone with diabetes who's dying from it is typically *NOT* in a coherent mental state. It's like being drunk, but far, far stronger, and from what I have heard (never experienced it myself but I did witness it happening toa friend on many occasions) it's not at all pleasant like being drunk is. It's like feeling a hangover *during* being drunk instead of after. But basically when blood sugar is too low, the body isn't getting enough fuel. Muscles are weak, heartbeat is slow, coordination is poor, and most notably, the brain is starving for energy and thus the person behaves in a disoriented manner similar to being drunk, but a lot stronger (can't remember his name, doesn't know where he is, doesn't know what day it is, doesn't know what's going on.)
Do you want someone in that state to be at the trigger of a machine gun?
It's a really insidious thing when someone has a low-blood sugar event like that. Because it makes his mind foggy enough that he's not able to tell what's going on, and doesn't see the danger himself. If it's in a social setting, then the first indication that something is wrong is everyone *else* noticing that he's acting really, really out-of-touch with what's going on. It's sometimes really hard to differentiate that fine line between someone just daydreaming and being out of sorts versus someone actually having a medical emergency. In both cases the person himself will assure you that everything is fine.
I was friends for a long time with someone with strong diabetes. It was uncomfortable being in that position of having to decide whether or not to get forceful and heavy-handed about *making* him have to eat something - it's socially unpleasant to make a mistake and get that forceful when it turns out there was nothing wrong, so often I would end up having to wait to see if it got any worse before taking action.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
You're more than welcome to think in my Church, even though you are a secular fundamentalist.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
The bill passing through the senate to reintroduce the draft is sponsored by none other than Senator Fritz Hollings, a Democrat who is quite famous for his attempts to cripple PC's so that Disney can keep Mickey safe from those evil internet people. I don't think this can really be construed as an attempt by the current US government to reintroduce conscription - it sounds more likely that it's just another attempt to make political hay.
I agree with you on the ideas, but the military does not work that way. I am morally opposed to having any involvement with the military, for the exact reason you stated, but that is not what the army means when they talk about CO status.
Conscientious objectors by military status were offered jobs doing things that were not essentially "military based," such as those above. What they believed and what they were offered are two different things. If you were to claim CO status, they could still assign you to non-combative positions. If you were to object to all offered positions, you could be effectively thrown in prison. Some people chose this route during Vietnam, rather than fleeing or being compliant with the government's demands for service.
"Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
You do realize of course that the Army just hires high priced marketing agencies to come up with campaigns that will be successful in increasing recruiting numbers and that these slogans don't have anything to do with training, doctrine or actual practices in the military, right? It's not like the training process has changed just because they have tried to make more fuzzy advertising that will appeal to today's 16-17 year old kids.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.