In a wartime situation, should women be drafted into the armed forces?

If men go to war, why not women? In any case, no one must be forced to kill others, man or woman...

I have no objection to women being drafted, per se. But I think that arguments for and against have merit. And I think that in family situations one person needs to remain home with the kids (obviously). Should that be the woman? Maybe in today's society that should be the person with the higher paying job, since that will make caring for the family at home easier ... I don't know - this is pure speculation. I admit I've never given it too much thought because I am a woman and I know I won't be drafted and I'm quite content with that ...

The more qualified people should obviously go. Male or female is irrelevant.

No, but I don't believe in the draft for men, either.

I don't think so, unless they want to join

I think having a draft sucks. I understand the reasoning behind it, and why it is necessary, but I still think it sucks. For men, and for women.

In as much as I dislike the draft, period, I would have to say no, but I say no probably not for the reasons the author of this survey had in mind.

I don't see why not. Restrictions should be given for pregnancy or if you have children (but if the father is there to take care of them that shouldnt' be a problem). **just add a couple more cents. I will agree that drafting is stupid in general, but it shouldn't be limited to men. an army of conscripts is a poor substitute for an army that wants to be there. if you don't have enough volunteers willing to defend a country, then if you lose the war (and are ruled by the winner) the country deserves it. After all, if you are unwilling to defend your way of life, you can't be too attached to it. This is provided that war is the only alternative. 'Desert Storm' REALLY cheesed me off.. there are so many people who are in the military to get training, or pay(or pension) or because they can't find anything else and they were all upset because they never expected to go to war. if that was the case, they shouldn't be in the military to begin with.

Wow, I thought I had made up my mind on this long ago but now I am having second thoughts. I have no problems with women entering wartime service of their own free will, but drafting? I don't think I can support this.
*** daver: it is a necessary evil if the nation is threatened
*** jjg: once important difference = men don't give birth. Not a big deal in a "Desert Storm" type situation but very significant in a civil war.
*** jjg: 1 woman + 10 men = 1 birth;1 man + 10 women = 10 births. I would demonstrate for you but my girlfriend would kill me.

Men shouldn't be either. I agree with Heinlein, if the people in a society won't defend it voluntarily, it deserves to perish.

I don't believe in drafting anyone into the armed forces. That said, if there were a draft, women should definitely be included.

no one should be drafted

No. I don't think that men should be drafted either.
**bill: I'll agree that war sucks, but it can suck less than the alternative. My main objection is to involuntary servitude. Let me just add that the oath required of conscientious objectors really burns me.
**jjg: A population could lose 50% of its male members (no pun intended) without a hiccup, reproductively speaking. Genetic diversity would obviously decrease, but not necessarily enough to be fatal to the population.
**jjg: What, exactly, do you consider the purpose of going to war to be? To me, the only acceptable reason for doing such is in defense of an attacked country. The purpose of the defense is, presumably, to prevent undesirable changes to that country's population. Allowing a population to die off in the name of preventing discrimination seems counter-productive. Or do you mean it's sexist to insist that a crucial difference between men and women is that women can bear children and men can't?
**jjg and jonas: For the USA, at least, this is an academic issue. The population is so large that even losing 10% would leave plenty of people to ensure the population's survival. 25 million casualties is a stupefying number (particularly in modern warfare), one that probably wouldn't be reached without weapons of mass destruction. If these are used, then the gender ratio of casualties will be inversely (but not linearly) proportional to the gender ratio in military service.

Most definitely. There is nothing more sexist than saying that the lives of men are less important than the lives of women. ***Jonas: I don't consider giving birth a reason to discriminate in this fashion. If 50% of the population is killed off then the species is dead anyway. ****Jonas: it still isn't a valid reason, it is still remains a sexist view that women should be protected. Let em fight too.****Daver: I mean that a woman is just as capable of defending her home as a man and of protecting men as men are of protecting her. Keeping women out of a war just because they are women makes no logical sense.

Yes, but only if there's already a draft. I'd rather we not have a draft at all. If there ever is one, and I'm not already too old, which I probably am, I don't plan to participate. (I'll tell.)

Why Not? Did you ever see a battle of two Woman? It's a dirty scene.

Gender doesn't enter into the question, in my mind. Being a pacifist, I have trouble with the concepts of war and drafting. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" If one must draft people, exclusions should be made on meritorious grounds, rather than inconsequentials like gender.

*** jjg: I strongly disagree that if 50% of the population is killed off the species is dead. Unless you mean 100% of one of the genders, that is, and even then, if there are still women and sperm in banks, it might be possible to "rebuild".

If there is a draft, all eligible people should be drafted. I know many women who are much better fighters than some men I know. Standard parents-shouldn't-go logic should apply.

This question doesn't specify whether the drafted women would be in combat units, so I assumed "not necessarily". However, I have no problem with women in combat so long as they meet the same physical standards currently in place for men, don't mind being molested by their captors when they get taken as POWs (and then potentially have to bear their captors' children, as military hospitals are not allowed to perform abortions), don't mind yeast infections from sitting in the trenches (along with all the other "special hygiene" concerns a female soldier would have), don't mind fighting off the advances of a whole platoon of horny comrades, don't mind wearing a crew cut, and are stupid enough to to be in combat, I say let 'em go nuts.

No one should ever be drafted in any situation.

Who started the war? Huh? Huh?

They never tried very hard to kill Saddam. They did, however, organize a coup to assassinate the democratically-elected president of Chile, organized a coup to restore the Shah of Iran, and (for the goal of defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan) gave heavy artillery to Islamic Fundamentalists who of course in turn blew up American helicopters. Afghanistan is now of course under the control of the Taliban (mega-fundamentalist) who have taken away the most basic human rights from the people - especially from the females.

assuming there really is a need for a draft, sure, go ahead and draft from the full pool of potential soldiers.

if a war was truly necessary for the protection of our country's way of life, i doubt a draft would really be needed. its the wars where our forces are protecting someone else's way of life that citizens won't, in general, volunteer for - and then why should they be forced to lay their lives on the line for someone or something they don't care about? down with the draft! boo!

BadtzMaru: you go, girl! *** bill: no. I want to use spies to infiltrate the Nazis and assassinate Hitler and Rommel and some other high-ranking officials whose names I can't remember at the moment. I really think that would do the trick. *** bill: perhaps we tried to kill Hitler that way. As for Saddam, we had the chance to kill him and chose not to. *** BadtzMaru: I have read about those Taliban people, and they seem to enjoy taking everyone's rights away - for example, men could/can (not sure if it's stilll like this) be executed for cutting their beards.

No, and men shouldn't be drafted either. I have to agree with Heinlein here.

*** Bill: I understand that in every study comparing the combat-worthyness of women and men, women fare as good or better than men do. Perhaps on average women aren't as strong, but (according to several of the Nova like TV shows I've seen) they are more cooperative, work better in teams, can carry more for longer, can stand more pain, and deal better with lousy weather and harsh conditions than men do.

OK, let's say it's WWII, Hitler is killing Jews by the millions, he has conquered every country he's attacked and he's headed our way. Now do you want to go to war?

After some consideration, I've changed my mind. I think drafts are important, else people will assume someone else will go in their place. Most people would prefer that someone else go to fight in a war, even if it is for a good cause. I know I would. I would need to be drafted, or I would need for my life to be destroyed before I went to fight in a war. This is off topic a little though. Yes, women should be drafted like men, but putting them in infantry units may be a mistake - women on average are not as physically capable as men. Still, I think there are many place they could fit in (in a tank, plane, other vehicle), also at all levels of command.

EB - We've been trying to kill Saddam that way for years, it doesn't work sometimes. We tried to kill Hitler that way, I'm sure - it's harder than it seems.

milktree, it's sounds like you are better informed than I am. All I know is that a conservative co-worker of mine said that the army had to change their "you must be able to care a 200lb soldier off the battlefield" rule to "you and one other person.." to accommodate women who usually can't do this alone. He said that this was a clear example of how it made our fighting force less effective.

I don't think ANYONE should be drafted. But if us women want equal rights we should share equal responsibilities

Infantry? War is about control of the air these days, and women can pull more G's than men (on average).

This question operates under the assumption that I think *anyone* should be drafted. Which I don't. So, no.

Accepting the implicit assumption that anyone should be drafted at all, yes.

To be fair, I'd say yes. But I don't actually think anyone should be drafted.

I don't think drafts are good for anyone m or f. But that's because I'm opposed to war, and I think it would be so awful to be forced to participate in it.

I don't think anyone should be drafted. Being in the military & fighting in a war should be purely voluntary.