• Vqhm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.

        The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.

        There’s a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that’s slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.

        During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it’d likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes the US tries to make soldiers the operators of weaponry, not the weapons themselves as in earlier times. Treasure spent on weaponry stokes the military industrial complex. Benefits to dead veterans families, not so much. Also civilian deaths undermine public support for whatever bullshit they are doing.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The war in Ukraine is a drafted/conscripted army versus a drafted/conscripted army. They are (to varying degrees) led and bolstered by volunteer career soldiers, but the vast majority of the boots on the ground have little to no experience.

          In times of “peace”, drafts and compulsory service are largely pointless. You are mostly just increasing churn and ensuring that accumulated knowledge is lost. And your “peaceful operations” likely have a small enough footprint that you can make do with volunteers.

          Against a near-peer or even just a conscript army with sheer numbers? You need to increase the amount of cannon fodder. And just the number of guns that can do the “easy” stuff while you rely on the highly trained soldiers to do the “hard” stuff.

          When World War 3 finally kicks off (… and assuming it isn’t over in the time it takes an ICBM to fly halfway around the planet): I don’t know if “civilized” nations will actually activate a draft because it will lead to mass unrest. But I am also not sure if they’ll have a choice.

          And just as a counter argument to weapons being increasingly high tech with a focus on skilled use: The US Military’s M5 is a good yellow flag. It is specifically designed with multiple ammunition types with the higher power round significantly degrading the life of the weapon and expected to only be issued for near peer conflicts. But that also speaks to the lessons learned from Ukraine and similar conflicts where… when the war really kicks off, you don’t have to worry about your weapons or soldiers lasting years. They will be damaged and killed in battles and need to be replaced.

    • scifu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really a world war until 10 countries are actively involved with 2 of them USA and China.

      Right now usa is passive and china is not involved.