First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply the draft and hypothetical WW3
Dragon
64055 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

redokami wrote:


MakotoKamui wrote:

Question - what about women that can't have children due to medical issues, or having their tubes tied, or because they have an IUD that is supposed to last longer than the projected duration of the war?

Related, should those unable to have children, male or female, be drafted on a priority basis over those who are theoretically able to produce children?


imo there shouldn't be a draft at all, it should be voluntary

Iif the women who are unable to have kids want to fight then let them, but as I said for the sake of the nation getting back on its feet after conflict we should hold back some women, we are already at a 1.8 birthrate per couple and some Europe countries are even lower, that's below sustainable level if you take out immigration <but that's a dif issue
im not talking about like Iraq war or whatever but a HUGE war where millions die we NEED people to stay back to populate, no im not talking aboutcamps or some shit "breeding stock" like that user thought I was, but simply about the people being alive to produce, and since women carry the children in them then that does kinda make them priority in that sense
as I said imo it should be voluntary on whether or not u fight, men and women, but alas we have a draft



Well, first, I agree, I don't think there should be a draft. But, you posed the topic and there is a draft, so, from what you are saying, it is about the ability to reproduce, not the fact of woman or man, it would seem. Saying a woman who can't have kids should get to choose seems wrong on that point - shouldn't they be forced into the draft? Shouldn't they be prioritizing the men who can't have kids as well, in case we need to repopulate?

But then.. what next. Should we be ranking people by breeding potential in the case of a draft, so the country could get back on its feet faster? Like.. high IQ, or great athletic ability? Prioritize drafting those who don't want kids as well, maybe?

This is your hypothetical draft, I'm just looking to see where you're going with it, other than saying "not women".
2324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

redokami wrote:


konjfful wrote:

Our nations dont need to survive. We are not at risk of underpopulation, or at risk of dying out anytime soon. Even if 5 of the 7 continents went extinct with humans, we'd still be dangerously overpopulated as a species. If anything, we need about 7 billion people to die right now if any of us want any hope of survival. With almost 9 billion people on this planet, are you seriously worried that a world war would effectively take up every single women, and kill them, so no one can repopulate? No, there's at least 4 billion women alive at this point in time. We are fine, what we really need as a planet is about 40 years of no one having any babies, and then that next generation would also wait about another 30-40 years to have any kids in order for the human population to be steady, safe and effective. What you SHOULD be worried about is OVER-population, because no, the human race won't go extinct if women are drafted into a WW3


so you only want 2 billion people on the planet?
also im not talking about women going extinct as a whole, im talking about the survival of individual nations, the French peoples the british peoples the Japanese peoples the American peoples

but clearly if you want 7 billion gone that would wipe out entire countries


Yes, that would be an amazing thing for the human race.
Even 2 billion people is more than what's natural. About 1 billion or less would be a good, natural sustainable number. But no, I don't want individual nations to survive. I think the way everything is rn is awful, terrible and needs to end. I think small communities is the best way to live, for example, the native americans. 9 billion people is literally scary, brightening, should not have come to this. You say I want only 2 billion people like it's a bad thing but you seem to know nothing of sustainability, mortality rate and efficiency of numbers and populations. If you did, then you would understand that yes, around 2 billion is much much better than what we have now.
21698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/7/17

MakotoKamui wrote:

Well, first, I agree, I don't think there should be a draft. But, you posed the topic and there is a draft, so, from what you are saying, it is about the ability to reproduce, not the fact of woman or man, it would seem. Saying a woman who can't have kids should get to choose seems wrong on that point - shouldn't they be forced into the draft? Shouldn't they be prioritizing the men who can't have kids as well, in case we need to repopulate?

But then.. what next. Should we be ranking people by breeding potential in the case of a draft, so the country could get back on its feet faster? Like.. high IQ, or great athletic ability? Prioritize drafting those who don't want kids as well, maybe?

This is your hypothetical draft, I'm just looking to see where you're going with it, other than saying "not women".

for the bolded part, AGAIN, ..sigh...that's some hitler tier shit im simply talking about keeping a nation alive not eugenics of making smarter people and breeding, im literally saying ,have enough women alive to produce, OF THEIR OWN ACCORD , as I said to the other person prostitute, with friend or while married idc, just don't die and keep the population of your nation going, no camps no priority for iq or race or some twisted shit,
also "prioritize men who cant have kids as well incase we need to repopulate" well if you cant have kids you cant repopulate..
I do agree with the priorty of drafting those who don't want kids, I mean if we have a draft which I don't agree with but we do so that's how we are having to debate this I guess , same goes with men,
I called out the woman sex because as I said the woman carries the baby, not the man, and for 9 months no less lol,
im stuck here tbh because I don't want a draft but we do so im having to debate with a draft mindset, though I don't want it or like it
7081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/8/17
Women and war...I am of a split opinion on this.

First, women should be required to sign up for the draft and should be eligible to be drafted. With equal rights comes equal responsibility.

That being said though, a WW3 is highly unlikely with modern technology and geopolitics. A war between any major nuclear powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan) would likely go nuclear. In a nuclear campaign large armies become a liability: a large target for a tactical nuclear weapon. War against a smaller, likely state will likewise not be a campaign with major US force commitments. The likely target of North Korea would involve mostly non-American forces (primarily South Koreans) or would quickly devolve into asymmetrical warfare like the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indeed that could be seen as the likely result of any campaign a first would country would wage against a third world country.

Future conflicts will not require large manpower commitments, will involve more technology, and will involve more special forces, drones, and asymmetrical combat. With coming advances in robotics and computers and increased sensitivity among western nations to casualties I expect an increased usage of robots and drones in warfare.

Furthermore, women are shown to be less capable in infantry combat so it would be inadvisable to send large numbers of women into the trenches. Sorry ladies, our bodies are not made for lugging all the gear around like men's bodies are. They have more raw strength and endurance. Women suffer greater fatigue injuries than men do in training. But with greater reliance on automation and robots in warfare these problems become nonexistent. Furthermore, women are shown to be just as capable as men when piloting or operating vehicles and naturally perform as well in administrative positions.
21698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

konjfful wrote:


redokami wrote:


konjfful wrote:

Our nations dont need to survive. We are not at risk of underpopulation, or at risk of dying out anytime soon. Even if 5 of the 7 continents went extinct with humans, we'd still be dangerously overpopulated as a species. If anything, we need about 7 billion people to die right now if any of us want any hope of survival. With almost 9 billion people on this planet, are you seriously worried that a world war would effectively take up every single women, and kill them, so no one can repopulate? No, there's at least 4 billion women alive at this point in time. We are fine, what we really need as a planet is about 40 years of no one having any babies, and then that next generation would also wait about another 30-40 years to have any kids in order for the human population to be steady, safe and effective. What you SHOULD be worried about is OVER-population, because no, the human race won't go extinct if women are drafted into a WW3


so you only want 2 billion people on the planet?
also im not talking about women going extinct as a whole, im talking about the survival of individual nations, the French peoples the british peoples the Japanese peoples the American peoples

but clearly if you want 7 billion gone that would wipe out entire countries


Yes, that would be an amazing thing for the human race.
Even 2 billion people is more than what's natural. About 1 billion or less would be a good, natural sustainable number. But no, I don't want individual nations to survive. I think the way everything is rn is awful, terrible and needs to end. I think small communities is the best way to live, for example, the native americans. 9 billion people is literally scary, brightening, should not have come to this. You say I want only 2 billion people like it's a bad thing but you seem to know nothing of sustainability, mortality rate and efficiency of numbers and populations. If you did, then you would understand that yes, around 2 billion is much much better than what we have now.


whether you like it or not we are never gonna go to native tribe tier living unless there is a big war that destroys our technologies entirely , like nukes
but with that you would prob get your wish of that mass scale murdering , if there is anyone left alive actually from that scale of a war, from the intital conflict to radiation and poisoning , and starvation
you seem to want this green utopia of no technology to corrupt and to be with nature, that's not reasonable at this point because of what we would have to erase that is so intertwined with every w\part of our life

and personally we still need countries, there have been countries for thousands of years
Dragon
64055 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

redokami wrote:


MakotoKamui wrote:

Well, first, I agree, I don't think there should be a draft. But, you posed the topic and there is a draft, so, from what you are saying, it is about the ability to reproduce, not the fact of woman or man, it would seem. Saying a woman who can't have kids should get to choose seems wrong on that point - shouldn't they be forced into the draft? Shouldn't they be prioritizing the men who can't have kids as well, in case we need to repopulate?

But then.. what next. Should we be ranking people by breeding potential in the case of a draft, so the country could get back on its feet faster? Like.. high IQ, or great athletic ability? Prioritize drafting those who don't want kids as well, maybe?

This is your hypothetical draft, I'm just looking to see where you're going with it, other than saying "not women".

for the bolded part, AGAIN, ..sigh...that's some hitler tier shit im simply talking about keeping a nation alive not eugenics of making smarter people and breeding, im literally saying ,have enough women alive to produce, OF THEIR OWN ACCORD , as I said to the other person prostitute, with friend or while married idc, just don't die and keep the population of your nation going, no camps no priority for iq or race or some twisted shit,
also "prioritize men who cant have kids as well incase we need to repopulate" well if you cant have kids you cant repopulate..
I do agree with the priorty of drafting those who don't want kids, I mean if we have a draft which I don't agree with but we do so that's how we are having to debate this I guess , same goes with men,
I called out the woman sex because as I said the woman carries the baby, not the man, and for 9 months no less lol,
im stuck here tbh because I don't want a draft but we do so im having to debate with a draft mindset, though I don't want it or like it


And one more time, I'm saying I agree, there shouldn't be a draft. You're the one posing it as a problem of repopulation, and posing restrictions on who to send out based on the potential repopulation. I'm pointing out the next step of that chain - which I also don't agree with, btw, but I'm glad you saw it.

If you want to say "those who can't parent children should have priority in the draft, since we have a draft", honestly I'd also disagree with that, but it would be a consistent position, that was what I was trying to point out. When you dodged about the women who couldn't have children getting the option of fighting, rather than being drafted like men, despite your point being about repopulation, it undermined your position, I thought.
2324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/7/17

redokami wrote:

whether you like it or not we are never gonna go to native tribe tier living unless there is a big war that destroys our technologies entirely , like nukes
but with that you would prob get your wish of that mass scale murdering , if there is anyone left alive actually from that scale of a war, from the intital conflict to radiation and poisoning , and starvation
you seem to want this green utopia of no technology to corrupt and to be with nature, that's not reasonable at this point because of what we would have to erase that is so intertwined with every w\part of our life

and personally we still need countries, there have been countries for thousands of years


You underestimate the powers of science.
That's all I will say. I don't feel like explaining the process behind my wish to you because you're just being cynical about everything I say. For future references, try to be more open with what other people say, not like, "Well, since you want less people, that means you want mass scale murdering, and nuclear warfare." No, lmao, you're just taking my words to the extreme. You're changing what I say to make it fit what you're saying better, instead of actually trying to read and understand what I'm saying. I know this because you say I want things that I never stated I want lol.
21698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/7/17

konjfful wrote:

You underestimate the powers of science.
That's all I will say. I don't feel like explaining the process behind my wish to you because you're just being cynical about everything I say. For future references, try to be more open with what other people say, not like, "Well, since you want less people, that means you want mass scale murdering, and nuclear warfare." No, lmao, you're just taking my words to the extreme. You're changing what I say to make it fit what you're saying better, instead of actually trying to read and understand what I'm saying. I know this because you say I want things that I never stated I want lol.


then propose to me how you would get rid of 7 billion people
also I do want to point out as of march 2016 I t had been estimated at 7.4 billion, not 9 billion
45 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/7/17
Science now exists...Women are more or less obsolete when it comes to reproduction. If it comes down to it we can make test tube babies, a bunch of test tube babies in artificial wombs. Designer babies are going to be here really soon which kind of throws the old fashion method out the door.

So in retrospect, if you want to be treated as an equal, then you should probably be drafted just as any other U.S. citizen should. Not that I would personally agree going to war, but that's how equality would work.

Hell while we're at it, let's get to the topic of Maternity Leave, in the U.S. it's the women that get maternity primarily while the father (Or significant other depending) still has to work. In Sweden both Mother and Father are allotted time from work to bond with their new born.

Just some food for thought.
30753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Massachusetts, Un...
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/7/17
Women have fought for equality for a very long time. There is no reason to stop them now. Even if there were to be a draft, which if I remember correctly won't happen again, but say it does; Not EVERYONE will be drafted, not EVERY woman will be drafted. Obviously the country will keep running there is no doubt about that and people will still keep giving birth no matter what. Men will be drafted before woman no doubt even if hypothetical anyways.

Personally, as a man, we should be defending. But, that's not how "Strong woman" want it anymore. Which, I guess is there right, but that's not how I personally see it. But that's just one aspect of the diagram.
One Punch Mod
97846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

redokami wrote:
well in the end we need to survive right?


Do we?
30753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Massachusetts, Un...
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

lorreen wrote:


redokami wrote:
well in the end we need to survive right?


Do we?


Sort of agree. Do we?
1339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

redokami wrote:

we need women to keep a country going, ya know, more people born? I wasn't saying don't let women fight AT ALL , I said only as a last resort in a HUGE conflict like ww3
please re read
also remember when in ww2 women worked in factories and other jobs when the men left? we stil have a economy and work to do you know now imagine if more women and men left , what would happen? it wouldn't be good, thos factory jobs for war supplies being made by women really helped , so there is that issue too


His point was that women ARE allowed in combat, largely because people said preventing it was sexist. So excluding them from the draft would also be sexist, hence it should not be done. Also, the only women were excluded from the draft originally was because they weren't allowed in combat, so that's another reason they should be included in it.
247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/7/17
I find the biased mentality about who should or shouldn't be in wars is apart of why wars are still occurring when they've never been in the best interest of the masses, except on a much greater scale then the warmongers tend to consider. If you're voting in a collective that is warlike, you're a warmonger. Doesn't matter if you're hiding at home because you sent someone else to fight. Doing that just helps one lose perspective if they want to remain in denial about what they've done, thus helping contribute to another future war until everyone is responsible.

Added in edit:
As for WW3 specifically, I feel like its already began in a cold form. Additionally, I find there are modern day holocausts occurring as well, often called drone attacks. WW3 is going to be much like a huge holocaust since there are so many long range huge payload weapons and most defense systems I have seen, while spoken about and hyped up, don't really work so well. Masses are going to be left fending for themselves, like always.
21698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 5/7/17

foraslan wrote:


redokami wrote:

we need women to keep a country going, ya know, more people born? I wasn't saying don't let women fight AT ALL , I said only as a last resort in a HUGE conflict like ww3
please re read
also remember when in ww2 women worked in factories and other jobs when the men left? we stil have a economy and work to do you know now imagine if more women and men left , what would happen? it wouldn't be good, thos factory jobs for war supplies being made by women really helped , so there is that issue too


His point was that women ARE allowed in combat, largely because people said preventing it was sexist. So excluding them from the draft would also be sexist, hence it should not be done. Also, the only women were excluded from the draft originally was because they weren't allowed in combat, so that's another reason they should be included in it.


frankly now a days the words sexist racist bigoted ___ phobic __ist are used so much I just ignore them

I try to look at the implications of if something does, or does not happen
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.