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."
If they pay more than the paltry salary I'm making now, then draft me up!
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
If they're drafting you for 'special skills' you're pretty unlikely to get stuck out someplace where you have a high chance of catching a bullet (or some high explosive.) This is probably far less true in the case of people with language skills, however.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The present operation of the US Selective Service is more or less trivial because the draft system not active, and it takes an Act of Congress in order to activate it. However, an Act of Congress can also totally rewrite the rules,
The draft in its present form is also very unconstitutional because it discrimates between men and women. In this day and age, that makes it a political untouchable. To require women to register will spark protests, but to not require them to do so would lead to court injunctions halting the draft process.
Congresspeople also have learned something from the Vietnam war. If a war is so unpopular that we are out of "weekend warrior" reserves and we can't convince people to join on their own, as a politician you should be voting to force a withdrawl rather allow the war to continue. To be depleted to the point that a draft is needed in modern times is a sign that we've already lost and just can't admit it.
The only people in Congress who called for a draft during recent years have been those who oppose the president's military plans. By rolling out a draft, or even raising the possiblity of a draft, a war effort suddenly becomes less popular.
Bottom line... the Selective Service exists only as a tool to be used in a doomsday situation, just like all of the city fallout shelters that were built in the USA during the cold war to be prepared for a nuclear bomb that never came. I'd consider anything new we hear from the Selective Service to be a rarely-used bureaucracy trying to justify its existance because in tight budgets, cutting the Selective Service's staff is always a low-pain cut.
If they're this desperate for workers, is there desperation reflected in wage scales, benefits, etc?
What's a guy make with a freshly-minted bachellaureate in computer science make, working for the military? Where do most of them end up, both in geographical and task-related terms? How much control over where they put you does a new officer have?
Why not just offer large enlistment bonuses and perhaps raise the age limits? I'll bet there are a lot of 40-something geeks who'd be willing to sign up. It would also be a lot easier politically than restarting the draft, and probably get better results: volunteers tend to do better work than draftees.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
The US Selective Service System is drawing up plans for a 'special skills draft'.
Would this include women?
Years ago in high school, a female friend once angrily declared the draft "sucked". I looked her straight in the face and said "What do you care?" "Huh?" "You' can't be drafted, only men can be." This was apparently a major revelation, and shockingly, the draft was forgotten about almost immediately.
Main theories I've heard are that a)"our nation's daughters" coming home in body bags during a war would be political suicide, and b)"women aren't as [strong/smart/whatever] as men". Oh, then there's c)"women would use their feminine wiles to distract the men busy fighting!"
Ever notice how feminists just really aren't torn up about any of that, even though most of it is deeply sexist? Also notice how Jessica Lynch was supposedly(according to the Army) beaten, raped, tortured, etc- when all evidence(and her own comments, before she developed permanent amnesia of events) point to all her injuries coming from the car accident she was in, and that Iraqi doctors took exemplary care of her? It's like the Army was saying "look, this is why you don't want women in the military! They're brave but helpless, and can get RAPED! Isn't she cute? She could be YOUR daughter!"
Please help metamoderate.
Amateur radio operators were an important source of technically skilled recruits during World War II. Computer hackers could fill a similar role in future conflicts. Not so much for their civilian skills, but for a pool of people with demonstrated intelligence and aptitude for technical jobs.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Just to put a little moderating spin on this whole discussion (not necessarily you) - We seem to have this "us" vs. "them" mentality. The government _is_ "us". If we see "us" as "them" and disengage then it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we engage "them", become involved, vote, write letters, campaign, hold public office, serve in the armed forces, etc. then the government becomes "us." Isn't that how it works?
I think perhaps we've swung a little too far into paranoia because so few Americans currently serve in the armed forces. I am a captain in the army reserves, and I get the strangest questions from people who have NO idea what being in the military is like. This wasn't true during my parent's generation.
What I'm saying is this: if we want war and an uncertain future, the best way to achieve this is to not serve, to not care, and to put the power to control such decisions in an increasingly smaller and smaller circle of "good ol' boys."
Being a soldier means as much about loving war as being a firefighter does about loving fire.
Now, first things first, we need to get a new fire captain soon... he keeps saying to us, can of gasoline in hand, that, "I'll have some work for you guys in a sec."
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Perhaps you're thinking of a different USA than the one being discussed. The last time the draft was instituted was during the Vietnam War, a conflict that didn't threaten the existence of the country. Not every American is willing to fight and die to keep their country the most powerful in the world, and there is no reason someone should be expected to.
Now class, can anyone tell me why there would be such a large, quite push to restaff so quickly? Mark my words, the draft will be back.
Here's my guesses:
1. If something goes really wrong this summer in Iraq or Afghanistan (like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam) then they will quickly draft and deploy before the November elections.
2. If Bush is reelected then the draft will start Jan or Feb 2005, slow for the first few months and then when they are up to speed they'll start pulling large amounts of young men.
3. If Kerry is elected I can't guess what he would do. I don't if there would be a major difference.
Watch how the US Govt handles draft, induction, training and deployment this time. You'll see companies created that go through boot together, post recruit train together, deploy together, what's left of them will get discharged together and the company disbanded. No more singles in, singles out. This is much more like WWII than Korea or Vietnam.
If you are 14 - 20 years old then I'd seriously start making plans on what you'll do. Speaking as someone who toted a 16 for his uncle I'd recommend not going at any cost. We use to say "the only thing worst than cleaning a body bag is being in one". As a parent I would do whatever it took to keep my son away from any unjust and immoral war like that clusterfuck going on in the Mid East.
As Frank Zappa once said: "What they do in Washington is take care of number one and number one ain't you. You ain't even number two."
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
I get the feeling it's not my country any more. There was a coup, and a right-wing fascist group seized control. Why the hell should I want to fight for them? If anything, fighting for MY country would be assassinating Bush, Rixe, Powell, and all their slimy corporate CEO buddies.
giving something back to the country that makes your way of life possible
I am the country -- I and 300 million other Americans. The country is not some capricious god that we dump offerings on.
When you can clearly demonstrate to me how blowing up chunks of Iraq has significantly benefitted We The People, then I'll happily join up.
A draft takes place when people don't care about something enough to want to risk dying for it, but do want to force someone else (who feels the same way) to do something about it. Since there are a number of ways of avoiding the draft, and since money and political influence played a role in avoiding Vietnam, I would say that a draft is a stunningly divisive and politically unsound way of achieving that goal.
If there were a horde of Bush's stereotypical black-swathed turban-wearning terrorists mowing down innocent people outside my front door, would I shoot back and risk my life? I'd at least give it serious consideration. That's a cause that's worth fighting for. Attacking a bunch of Iraqis for political goals that are at best extremely unclear and perhaps poorly chosen, and at worst downright corrupt and evil is not something that I am interested in dying for. Frankly, given a choice between firing a shot at either Ashcroft or a random Iraqi citizen, I can tell you right now who I'd be aiming at.
While I don't want to be drafted to fight in Iraq, also I don't feel that anyone else should be drafted to fight there. As a matter of fact, I feel very strongly that we should not be involved in Iraq at all. I think that US actions in Iraq have caused political and social repercussions that hurt the United States more than help it. So, no. I would not be "fighting for the the country", I would be fighting against it.
May we never see th
I'm continually astonished that people who will object to environmental regulation, "because it violates my property rights", will at the same time support the notion of the draft. Working to abolish the draft, in all forms, sounds like my patriotic duty. Blind support of the government, and forcing others to die for, and to kill for, policy they disagree with hardly sounds like serving *my* country. Maybe you live in a dictatorship, but I live in the USA.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Senator Carl Schurz -- February 29, 1872. That's patriotism. The word for what you are endorsing is "jingoism". I prefer patriotism, it takes more thought, and requires more bravery.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Since when has the draft stopped a war? The only thing the draft ensures is that politically unconnected people are forced to fight and die for causes supported for the politically connected, while their kids get cushy jobs in the Air National Guard, where no one cares if they show up or not.
The draft is slavery. I am a veteran, and I proudly volunteered. But if they were to show up claiming they had a right to my life and time - I'd go to jail first.
According to the articles, Rumsfeld says he won't ask for a draft. As long as he feels that way, there won't be a draft.
I'd bet that if Bush wins re-election, he will suddenly find a critical need for a draft. Amazing how the need to get win an election keeps officials from supporting unpopular issues.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Are you on fucking crack?
What do you think the draft is? WHat do you think happened in WWII and vietnam? Do you think people were trained in "facilities to house or train that many new recruits"? Do you live in 2004?
The draft is real, like it or not. The government maintains the selective service specifically so they can draft people immediately when needed. Volumes of poeple, Hundreds of thousands if needed.
You are sadly mistaken if you believe for one second that the US Government has no infrastructure to draft people. It can happen in a heartbeat. It doesn't take "years of planning and building"
It sounds like you are the one with the tinfoil hat on. I think the metal is seeping into your bloodstream and giving you poisoning.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
The PNAC agenda + our current military status = the draft.
Its like the lottery, except when you win you lose. Don't like it? Kick out Bush and his PNAC buddies.
I just joined the Marine Corps. I leave in Sept. I am not scared of some draft.
I'd imagine not, considering that you are already in the military. There are those of us, balls notwithstanding, that have become accusomed to our current ways of life and would not like to be forced into military service. There are also those among us who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply prefer not to die.
I can not think of any people other than my own for whom I would risk death to secure freedom. Using volunteers for our charity work around the world is all well and good, but I think drafts shold be reserved for actual threats to the nation's security.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
> There are those of us, balls notwithstanding,
> that have become accusomed to our current ways
> of life and would not like to be forced into
> military service. There are also those among us
> who again, balls notwithstanding, would simply
> prefer not to die.
There are two ways to look at it:
1 - Afraid to die/lose your current way of life
2 - Want to kill someone/change your current way of life
Most of the people who join the USMC fall into that second catagory. If their recruiter is even vaugely honest with them (which, I'll admit, is a streach for even the mildest mannered recruiter), they let prospective recruits know that, in the end, it's about killing the enemy dead either by pushing a button, pulling a trigger or by putting your fscking kbar through his heart.
Anyone who forgets that and still thinks military service is a good idea from them should probably join the peace corps and go off to get high with the natives in the next country that the USMC will be visiting shortly.
Personally, I'm with Robert Heinlein: No service, no vote.
This makes clear that the "U.S. Plans Targeted Draft for Computer Personnel" headline is pure scaremongering. No one is about to get drafted. This is not "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming" for those of you trapped in the 1970s. This is deep, long-range contingency planning by a government agency that needs to look busy to keep their funding from being cut.
Too many people seem to be ignorant of the difference between "contingent" and "imminent." Just because, say, for example, FEMA updates its plans on recovering from a nuclear war DOESN'T MEAN we're planning to launch a nuclear war. Likewise, that whole "Pentagon plans for possibility of global climate change" had nothing to do with them planning for what they thought was going to happen, but everything to do with laying in contingency plans for what MIGHT happen, just like we had "rainbow" plans before World War II as to what we might have to do if involved in a global war against various enemies; just because we made plans for a global war against England, Russia and China (as well as Japan and Germany) didn't mean such an event was likely.
Will anyone here on Slashdot be called up? If, say, al Queda or North Korea nukes DC or Los Angeles, maybe. Otherwise all this talk is a bunch of blather from people who like to over-react anytime anyone in the Bush administration mentions the words "national security" and "computers" in the same sentence.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Uhh...no. Wrong, incorrect, off-base (pun intended). The Air Force does not need, want, endorse, or otherwise envision a draft.
Sir.Cracked is right about the force shaping program. In point of fact, it's no secret that the Air Force is having a problem with getting people TO LEAVE. (something about patriotism, job satisfaction, being a part of something bigger than yourself)
We don't WANT a draft, don't NEED a draft, and don't LIKE the draft.
1. Draftees have to be trained like everyone else. Volunteers (by virtue of wanting to be there) tend to learn better than draftees. Since we need specific skillsets, more training is going to be required. (e.g. knowing Arabic does not an intelligence officer make)
2. Draftees only stay for a limited amount of time. With a draft, the AF loses a well-established incentive program that has managed to keep a lot of people with needed skills for a long time. With a draft, we'll have a lot of people for two years, max.
3. The AF has had an all-volunteer force (AVF) for over thirty years. There are but a handful of personnel still on active duty who joined when the draft was still in force. If we go back to a draft, the culture shift would be devastating. Every single policy decision, every strategy has, directly or indirectly, has to consider how it will impact the volunteer force. A draft would be more work than those skills gain.
4. The skills the Selective Service is planning to draft all require careful security screening and trust. These are not areas that draftees would be just dropped into.
5. Why draft when you can contract? Contractors can be found in every aspect of military forces. They're no longer being kept back in the US--they're on the front lines. Easier to buy a ready-made capability than draft it and force it out of the draftees. You draft infantry, not computer techs.
6. The AF is doing pretty well, despite what "experts" on here might think. The Army might be hurting, but I doubt it. Look at the millions being poured into recruiting (airforce.com). The DOD isn't about to abandon this strategy.
My opinions are my own.
So long as we understand "service" properly:
Never confuse serving the state with serving your country.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood