At times of war, you can voluntarily enlist or, when you're drafted, you can dodge the draft.
"Dodging the draft" isn't a simple thing, especially if you are poor and don't want to spend your life in jail/on the run/in another country. And the draft hasn't actually happened in 50 years.
As for the OP, I would say that the modern world doesn't really function now, at least if you're poor, a migrant, a minority, a women, or lgbt+...and sure, it's because of selfishness/greed/whatever verbiage you want to use..
I agree draft dodging isn't a simple thing. But on the other hand, if your likely drafted position could be as a crew member on, say, a German U-Boat in WW2, then you were better off spending the rest of your *years* of life in another country rather than spending the rest of your short 60 days of life on the U-Boat. Would you rather choose the risk of being assigned a position where you will almost assuredly die in the next few months or the risk of having to flee your homeland for the rest of your life?
I don't know it would be difficult to invade. As Bismarck noted its surrounded by weak neighbours and fish.
Alaska was Russian in XIX century. So was a part of California. If America seemed weak and easy to bully, who knows if Russia wouldn't continue it's Eastern consquest further into American continent. But, America was pretty much exactly the opposite - not so long ago, they repelled English invasion with just self-organized militias.
I agree draft dodging isn't a simple thing. But on the other hand, if your likely drafted position could be as a crew member on, say, a German U-Boat in WW2, then you were better off spending the rest of your *years* of life in another country rather than spending the rest of your short 60 days of life on the U-Boat. Would you rather choose the risk of being assigned a position where you will almost assuredly die in the next few months or the risk of having to flee your homeland for the rest of your life?
I understand your point, but again, not so simple when you're poor. Certainly not saying it can't or doesn't happen, all we need to do is look at the refugees from war-torn areas in our current age to see it.
Alaska was Russian in XIX century. So was a part of California. If America seemed weak and easy to bully, who knows if Russia wouldn't continue it's Eastern consquest further into American continent. But, America was pretty much exactly the opposite - not so long ago, they repelled English invasion with just self-organized militias.
British not English The US does have a lot of manpower (though still modest compared with China or India) so yes it could mobilise a large army if it needed. Although it would be geographically difficult to invade. There's two huge oceans to cross and a friendly neighbour to the north. Theoretically Mexico has enough manpower to pose a serious military threat, especially if backed by a foreign power. Germany attempted this during the great war, encouraging Mexico with promises of reclaiming it's lost territory in the south west.
It's an interesting historical what-if if Russia hasn't sold Alaska in the 1860s. Although the Tsarist empire was already very overstretched and out competed by British and American claims in North America. The great game in central Asia, or it's later defeat by Japan in 1905, would have probably finished off Russia's North American empire if they hadn't cut their losses earlier.
"Dodging the draft" isn't a simple thing, especially if you are poor and don't want to spend your life in jail/on the run/in another country…
As for the OP, I would say that the modern world doesn't really function now, at least if you're poor, a migrant, a minority, a women, or lgbt+...and sure, it's because of selfishness/greed/whatever verbiage you want to use..
Thank you for this. It isn’t as easy as running away in the US. And it may be self serving to obey your draft order and abide because you’re going to avoid the pain the government will inflict upon you for the rest of your life.
My uncle dodged in WW2. He went on to be a famous scientist but never could get a job in a government lab. He had to share government grants because he could never get them as a principal investigator. He ran a special consultancy so NASA could indirectly employ him. During the war he was arrested and convicted for his resistance following his capture. He did two years at Leavenworth. He had a federal felony charge that followed him his entire career. Basically he was screwed on many levels. Dodging is simple if you’re rich and connected. My uncle was not.
I deeply admire men (and women for that matter) who refuse to take up arms. I'll help anyone do that if I can.
Even if those men and women were meant to defend YOU? Do you propose that, upon any invasion, anyone and everone flees to some neutral country? What if the last neutral country was conquered and there is nowhere to escape to any more?
I deeply admire men (and women for that matter) who refuse to take up arms. I'll help anyone do that if I can.
As someone with non-pacifist leanings this is super interesting. The following two questions are not meant as gotchas but to try to understand the extent of the admiration:
If country A invades country B do you admire people from country B who refuse to take up arms against country A?
Do you admire people who refuse to defend themselves when physically attacked?
Do you admire people who refuse to defend themselves when physically attacked?
It would depend on the circumstances, especially if there were potential third party victims.
Cat Stevens said at Glastonbury this year 'I've been campaigning against war since the 1960s, but war continues. My solution? Lock all the leaders up in London zoo'
locking up all leaders would require quite a lot of war and violence.
not defending against aggression is the same as rewarding aggression, which is not very far from provoking aggression.
locking up all leaders would require quite a lot of war and violence.
I think the point he was making in a jokey way was war was not demanded by the masses but by the corruption of power. At least that's how I understood it.
The romans understood it 2000 years ago
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only reason China hasn’t yet moved on Taiwan is because they’re very afraid of the consequences.
No US army = a much shittier proposition for all of the free world.
Unfortunately us in Europe have grown used to virtue signaling “ohh we don’t do that” while what we’re doing is simply having someone else do the dirty work.
Think about pollution (moving polluting activities to Asia) or war (free riding on the USA).
Unfortunately us in Europe have grown used to virtue signaling “ohh we don’t do that” while what we’re doing is simply having someone else do the dirty work.
Probably because Europeans understand what war is like better than most. What we have got use to is decades of peaceful integration which has rendered a war between a western European power as basically an impossibility. And therein lies a lesson for the rest of the world.
@chenda - also, what do you admire in people who refuse to fight? In most cases, they do it out of self-interest - to avoid being harmed in the fighting.
The US does have a lot of manpower (though still modest compared with China or India) so yes it could mobilise a large army if it needed. Although it would be geographically difficult to invade. There's two huge oceans to cross and a friendly neighbour to the north. Theoretically Mexico has enough manpower to pose a serious military threat, especially if backed by a foreign power. Germany attempted this during the great war, encouraging Mexico with promises of reclaiming it's lost territory in the south west.
