How would American culture be different with the draft?

How would American culture be different if from the very beginning serving in the military was seen as a civic duty for all Americans? What if constitutionally there was mandatory military service for all Americans (and I mean all, kinda like during the second WW)and the idea of total war(again, like WW2. Where either you're fighting the war or supporting the war effort)?
Basically,war and military service would be seen as a shared sacrifice of the collective citizenry. And the way the US waged WW2, it's commitment to victory and using every last man, woman, and child to attain it, would be the way the US waged any war. How would American culture be different? How would American society be different?

There are several issues with "national service". Any size military the US would want in peacetime would not take up all the eligible military age males, so who goes in the military and who does other service? Does everyone go in after HS, or some defer until after college or professional school but then have to serve longer (3 or 4 years instead of 2). So who does military duty, who does something less dangerous or unpleasant.Who goes in at 18 as an enlisted, who goes in after college as an officer or professional. Will these be chosen randomly or will lower class go at 18, well off later or in "non-military" service. Furthermore at some point the military does not want many 2 year service folks...by the time you train them, they are almost out the door.

Then we have the issue of those who would be disqualified for service either for physical reasons, criminal reasons, or poor education. And, finally what about women, especially in some areas like nursing, and as time goes on and women become more and more prevalent in law, medicine, etc....

Even when the US had a peacetime draft, during the 50's and 60's before Vietnam everyone didn't serve.

So how about this:
During wartime everyone who is eligible will be taken into the military. This includes women.
During peacetime, military service will be optional but non military national service isn't. Everyone who has the physical and mental ability does two years after high school, no exceptions.

The original conception was for there to be (essentially) no standing army, but that most military force be provided by state militia. There was an absolute horror of large standing armies until WWII (I think it was that late).

So, there's no way this will happen with a national army.

I also think that some people considered that the militia should consist of all adult male citizens. But I could be wrong there. Getting 'universal' participation in the militia would be doable - but would be on paper only, I suspect.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

The original conception was for there to be (essentially) no standing army, but that most military force be provided by state militia. There was an absolute horror of large standing armies until WWII (I think it was that late). ...

Click to expand...

States frequently attempted to organize universally manned militas. Those floundered first on the cost. In Indiana the legislature would not even pay for a clerks salary for the Adjutant Generals office. This derived from a general apathy towards militia/military service, and from active opposition by some segments of the citizenry.

It was not until the Cold War & entry of the communist armies into central Europe, & Asia that the US population would tolerate a large standing army. But note how a large navy was tolerated pre 1940.

Go with a variation on this idea and you have the situation described in Starship Troopers (the book, NOT the movie that happened to share the name).

In there, service wasn't compulsory but you had to serve a term to get the franchise to vote, hold office, etc. That service could be military or civilian service but was as designated by the government. It was also set up so ANYONE (regardless of condition/disability) could serve, even if that meant counting the hairs on a caterpillar by hand (if that's all one could do).

sahaldelta said:

So how about this:
During wartime everyone who is eligible will be taken into the military. This includes women.
During peacetime, military service will be optional but non military national service isn't. Everyone who has the physical and mental ability does two years after high school, no exceptions.

Click to expand...

Carl Schwamberger said:

It was not until the Cold War & entry of the communist armies into central Europe, & Asia that the US population would tolerate a large standing army. But note how a large navy was tolerated pre 1940.

Click to expand...

Do you think that goes back to perception of democratic, trading and naval empire vs autoritarian, agricultural, land based one?

jahenders said:

Go with a variation on this idea and you have the situation described in Starship Troopers (the book, NOT the movie that happened to share the name).

In there, service wasn't compulsory but you had to serve a term to get the franchise to vote, hold office, etc. That service could be military or civilian service but was as designated by the government. It was also set up so ANYONE (regardless of condition/disability) could serve, even if that meant counting the hairs on a caterpillar by hand (if that's all one could do).

Click to expand...

There are so many reasons why that wouldn't work in practise or where Heinlein just handwaives problems that would arise that you'd need to change that to a degree it's practically unrecognisable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberger
It was not until the Cold War & entry of the communist armies into central Europe, & Asia that the US population would tolerate a large standing army. But note how a large navy was tolerated pre 1940.

aktarian said:

Do you think that goes back to perception of democratic, trading and naval empire vs autoritarian, agricultural, land based one?

Click to expand...

Yes that is part of it, the agrarian citizen. The yeomanry in the English culture they were familiar with. The Founding Fathers also had specific fear of standing armies & tyrants, in the Roman or Greek traditions they were familiar with from their classical educations. Low cost was another attraction.

One forgotten item is Jeffersons program for a militia Navy. The Federal government under Jefferson organized naval militia companies in the coastal districts. The result were a hand full of neglected rotting hulks of 'brown water' ships or "galleys" beached in the estuaries. They were nominally crewed by some undertrained locals. This was replaced by the reorganization of a standing navy & the frigate construction program.

I don't know about that.

One of the hardest parts about implementing it would be getting people to accept that you had to serve to get the right to vote or hold office, though he briefly explains that by noting that civilization had largely collapsed.

The other hard part would be that it could essentially be a form of guaranteed employment and could be expensive if a large percentage of people applied for it. However, that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the person needs to do what is asked, go where he's sent, etc. However, in Heinlein's book, people primarily choose to serve or not when young. Though, if implementing today, you'd have to either grandfather older people with the right or you'd have to allow anyone of any age to join.

We already have a VERY large government workforce (even larger if you count the contractors that support it).

aktarian said:

There are so many reasons why that wouldn't work in practise or where Heinlein just handwaives problems that would arise that you'd need to change that to a degree it's practically unrecognisable.

Click to expand...

jahenders said:

I don't know about that.

One of the hardest parts about implementing it would be getting people to accept that you had to serve to get the right to vote or hold office, though he briefly explains that by noting that civilization had largely collapsed.

The other hard part would be that it could essentially be a form of guaranteed employment and could be expensive if a large percentage of people applied for it. However, that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the person needs to do what is asked, go where he's sent, etc. However, in Heinlein's book, people primarily choose to serve or not when young. Though, if implementing today, you'd have to either grandfather older people with the right or you'd have to allow anyone of any age to join.

We already have a VERY large government workforce (even larger if you count the contractors that support it).

Click to expand...

Military outsources pretty much everything, from selection to logistic. And we saw how well that worked in Iraq.....
It requires people to be uncorrupted and uncorruptable. In book they are. In real life....

But yes, that works because Heinlein could say "it's my story so if I say it works it's works. Deal with it."

Even as far back as feudal Middle Ages, local princes conscripted peasants as lightly-armed foot soldiers.
We can blame Napoleon for the modern concept of conscripted national
armies.
Canada only conscripted soldiers and sailors during WW1 and WW2. Both times it proved a political disaster that did not provide significant numbers of soldiers for battles fought in Belgium.

Also consider that compulsory service does not have to be military. During WW2, hundreds of American negroes served as forest fire fighters, even smoke-jumpers and the bulk of the American engineers who built the Alaska Highway were black.
Also consider the West German conscription -during the Cold War - that exempted fire fighters, medics and Berliners.
As for the difficulty of peace-time standing armies, just vary the standards depending upon how bellicose your neighbours are. Late in a bloody war, you draft anyone who can carry a gun or swing a shovel.
OTOH When neighbours are quiet, only compel the top one percent to serve, then give them the option of serving as park rangers, summer camp counsellor, digging archeological artifacts or changing bed-pans in old-folks' homes. If they refuse service in an old-folks' home they lose voting privileges, access to public health care, gov't jobs, etc.
Also remember that universal suffrage is a comparatively recent concept, because for thousands of years, only the male heads of land-owning families were allowed to vote.