Reinstitution of Military Conscription

Do you favor registration of draft age individuals for possible future conscription?

Yes

Our nation's military are depleted. From a high of 1.5 million troops in 1973, they have dwindled to a meager 300,000 individuals today. In the event of another massive conventional land war in Europe (in the tradition of WWI and WWII), it is estimated that another 650,000 men would be needed. Yet it would take at least 110 days for the first individual to be drafted, and another 40 days before 100,000 soldiers could be conscripted. This state of affairs would result in dire consequences for our nation's security. Registration in itself does not impose great liabilities on registered individuals--yet it adds greatly to our country's national defence and deterence capabilities. It is a sane move for the country which should be immediately adopted.

No

Reviving draft registrations will mean that thousands of young men, and possibly women, will again be subjected to government intrusion and channeling. Individuals' rights to privacy and conscience will be casualties of the military buildup. Although registration would undoubtedly be conducted in as low-key a fashion as possible, widespread resistance is likely to occur and our government will likely prosecute those who don't cooperate. Perhaps most dangerously, a registration will provide the Pentagon with a faceless pool of prospective inductees to be used in a largescale intervention overseas. A beefed-up standby draft system will expand our mobilization capability and make it easier to wage "quick-start" wars around the globe.

Do you favor universal conscription for military or non-military national service in peacetime?

Yes

It is the duty of every citizen to serve his country. Yet in the past the selective draft has singled out the poor, minorities, and people without conneetions for service. A nation's army should reflect all of its citizens. The McCloskey bill, HR 2206, would solve the problem of inadequate amounts of people by requiring some service, either civilian or military from everyone between the ages of 18 and 24. Universal conscription would also give employment to the sector where it is most needed--teenage and early twenties," also, young people could learn skills in the army which would be impossible for them to gain anywhere else.

No

From a military perspective, the army really doesn't need additional troops. All contingency plans are based on a long conventional war in Europe, one which most experts believe would be extremely unlikely at the present state of affairs. Any conventional war in the future will most likely be relatively short. Thus the need for masses of troops is just not there. The proposed programs would cost over $50 billion; for much money the Volunteer Army could be made more attractive. Also the presence of thousands more troops could tempt politicians into engaging in adventurous interventions around the globe. Morally, the prospect of rights removed, liberties taken away, and slave-like labor is repellant.

If any form of registration or conscription is reinstituted, should it apply to men and women alike?

Yes

We are all citizens of the country; men and women should have equal rights, and with those rights come equal reponsibilities.

No

Men are better at fighting and should be the ones to defend the country. From another tack, if the draft is a bad thing for men, why should women as well be forced to be subject to it?

If any form of registration or conscription is reinstituted, should it apply to men and women alike?

Yes

We are all citizens of the country; men and women should have equal rights, and with those rights come equal reponsibilities.

No

Men are better at fighting and should be the ones to defend the country. From another tack, if the draft is a bad thing for men, why should women as well be forced to be subject to it?