How long does conscription last with no Vietnam?

The U.S. abandoned conscription because of the experience in Vietnam.

If the U.S. avoids intervening in Vietnam for whatever reason, would conscription end?
 
When the Cold War ends, there would be some debate about ending it, but I don't think that would last long. Peacekeeping missions and all that would keep conscription alive, and some people here would end up drafted. I wonder if they'd pick me.... I'd be one of the few to become a soldier who started out as a Section Eight.
 
It obviously wouldn't be "almost everyone gets drafted" like in WWII - after the Cold War ends I can't see more than 10 dates being picked per year until 9/11 (assuming 9/11 and the War on Terror isn't butterflied away), and even then probably no more than 30-40 dates would be picked per year.
 
It obviously wouldn't be "almost everyone gets drafted" like in WWII - after the Cold War ends I can't see more than 10 dates being picked per year until 9/11 (assuming 9/11 and the War on Terror isn't butterflied away), and even then probably no more than 30-40 dates would be picked per year.

If the need for manpower fell that much, you would probably get enough volunteers. In 1972, the number of men drafted fell substantially for that reason. Of course, the end of action in Vietnam and anti-war activism at home brought the draft to an official end in 1973. Without that activism, I can see it lingering on (at least on paper), but not much past the late seventies.
 
When the Cold War ends, there would be some debate about ending it, but I don't think that would last long. Peacekeeping missions and all that would keep conscription alive, and some people here would end up drafted. I wonder if they'd pick me.... I'd be one of the few to become a soldier who started out as a Section Eight.

I disagree as a major motivator during the Cold War was not so much keeping units up to strength, but the size of the individual readiness reserve and the organized reserves (NG and Army Reserve). There was a serious concern in the mid 1980s that the manpower reserve immediately available would be exhausted in a protracted conventional war.

Remembering the actual peacekeeping missions that have involved the United States military since 1989, none required a force larger than a division for any length of time, and most are merely brigade sized or smaller.
 
There might be a debate to end it if the Cold War ends though I doubt that the armed forces would end it.

remember that the Congress controls this, not the military. The Draft was never particularly popular in the US at any point, and was only accepted due to the two world wars and the threat of the big one with the Soviets. No threat, no draft.
 
It's out by the mid-1980s at the latest. Conscripts cannot be adequately trained to handle the influx of high-tech equipment and more complex performance required out of modern Soldiers. That, and we could not have afforded to maintain a large enough Army to handle a large influx of conscripts and still equip it to 1980s standards, much less 1990s. You really, really don't want to think about the cost per rifleman or sapper on the ground today. Once it became apparent that this is the case, conscription would go.

Conscription would also fall apart when it becomes obvious we don't have anything to do with most of the population of America. 50% of US High School graduates cannot enlist in the Army because their test scores are too low. Large quantities of them are too frickin' fat. Modern war doesn't have a role for border-line retards that might have made fine line infantry in Napoleon's day. Forest Gump couldn't fill a radio with crypto.

You also have to look to the discipline problems of the 1970s Army. Yeah, those are conventionally blamed on Vietnam. They can also be blamed on a culture of disregard for conventional institutions, societal acceptance of drug use, etc. You can't polish a turd. Only a volunteer Army could have fixed those problems in the way it did (late 1970s), which was to institute programs to kick drug users, racial troublemakers, and people who just didn't want to play by the Army's rules OUT.

And Iraq? Afghanistan? With Conscripts? A nightmare. Undisciplined, untrained morons with inadequate shake and bake NCOs cannot conduct proper, effective COIN operations. You need real professionalism down to the rifle team, because that corporal or buck sergeant just might fuck up hard-core enough to get on the evening news and cause riots from Indonesia to Morocco. Not to say it hasn't happened with professionals, take the idiots from 2-17 IN up on charges now. But it would be 100 times worse if the leaders had 12 months in the damn army before taking over a team.
 
It keeps going. Without Vietnam, there's no political will to get rid of it. Oh, there might be some people in favor of a more professional military on the fringes, especially after the USSR collapses (assuming it collapses as per OTL in a world without Vietnam), but ultimately there's no overwhelming driving populist force against the draft, and thus conscription stays.

If Britain and the other NATO players do, however, move to all-volunteer armies as per OTL even as the US maintains the draft, you could very well see a positive movement for conscription in the US as professional/volunteer armies are seen as too European.
 
Last edited:
It's out by the mid-1980s at the latest. Conscripts cannot be adequately trained to handle the influx of high-tech equipment and more complex performance required out of modern Soldiers. That, and we could not have afforded to maintain a large enough Army to handle a large influx of conscripts and still equip it to 1980s standards, much less 1990s. You really, really don't want to think about the cost per rifleman or sapper on the ground today. Once it became apparent that this is the case, conscription would go.

Conscription would also fall apart when it becomes obvious we don't have anything to do with most of the population of America. 50% of US High School graduates cannot enlist in the Army because their test scores are too low. Large quantities of them are too frickin' fat. Modern war doesn't have a role for border-line retards that might have made fine line infantry in Napoleon's day. Forest Gump couldn't fill a radio with crypto.

You also have to look to the discipline problems of the 1970s Army. Yeah, those are conventionally blamed on Vietnam. They can also be blamed on a culture of disregard for conventional institutions, societal acceptance of drug use, etc. You can't polish a turd. Only a volunteer Army could have fixed those problems in the way it did (late 1970s), which was to institute programs to kick drug users, racial troublemakers, and people who just didn't want to play by the Army's rules OUT.

And Iraq? Afghanistan? With Conscripts? A nightmare. Undisciplined, untrained morons with inadequate shake and bake NCOs cannot conduct proper, effective COIN operations. You need real professionalism down to the rifle team, because that corporal or buck sergeant just might fuck up hard-core enough to get on the evening news and cause riots from Indonesia to Morocco. Not to say it hasn't happened with professionals, take the idiots from 2-17 IN up on charges now. But it would be 100 times worse if the leaders had 12 months in the damn army before taking over a team.

Welcome to the forum.

I do agree that the draft would go away as you said, rather than linger without a Vietnam war to ignite a movement against it.

Some advice: Watch your use of harsh words like moron, retards and idiots when referring to unqualified or under-trained people. Somebody might take offense and the post might be interpreted as "trolling." Ian the Administrator will warn, kick (suspend membership) or ban those who do not comply with the rules of the forum.
 
Welcome to the forum.

I do agree that the draft would go away as you said, rather than linger without a Vietnam war to ignite a movement against it.

Some advice: Watch your use of harsh words like moron, retards and idiots when referring to unqualified or under-trained people. Somebody might take offense and the post might be interpreted as "trolling." Ian the Administrator will warn, kick (suspend membership) or ban those who do not comply with the rules of the forum.

Thank you. I've been reading for a couple days, and while my interests are fairly narrowly focused, I do tend to get a little passionate about them. I also take fairly personally stereotypes of the sort of folks who join professional armies, especially when you consider that half the US population can't even score high enough become infantry. Conscription would lower the overall intelligence and education levels in Army, not improve it. Data point number 1: If those stereotypes were universal, I wouldn't be writing alternate histories involving POD in 1204, would I?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I disagree as a major motivator during the Cold War was not so much keeping units up to strength, but the size of the individual readiness reserve and the organized reserves (NG and Army Reserve). There was a serious concern in the mid 1980s that the manpower reserve immediately available would be exhausted in a protracted conventional war.

Remembering the actual peacekeeping missions that have involved the United States military since 1989, none required a force larger than a division for any length of time, and most are merely brigade sized or smaller.

You hit the nail right on the head.

Thank you. I've been reading for a couple days, and while my interests are fairly narrowly focused, I do tend to get a little passionate about them. I also take fairly personally stereotypes of the sort of folks who join professional armies, especially when you consider that half the US population can't even score high enough become infantry. Conscription would lower the overall intelligence and education levels in Army, not improve it. Data point number 1: If those stereotypes were universal, I wouldn't be writing alternate histories involving POD in 1204, would I?

I'd like to know where you got that. Can you cite that information? Because I've served in two different militaries and the one thing that made me realize just how stupid you can be in the the service is just how high I scored on the ASVAB.
 
You hit the nail right on the head.

I'd like to know where you got that. Can you cite that information? Because I've served in two different militaries and the one thing that made me realize just how stupid you can be in the the service is just how high I scored on the ASVAB.

From ex-recruiters, actually . . .


But AFQT scores are actually percentile. Cat IIIAs are 50-64,and those are the lowest we let in without restriction. IIIBs (31-49 percentile) can only make up a certain percentage of recruits, must have a high school diploma, and generally cannot require any other waivers. You also don't get any bonuses or other fun incentives, and generally can't reenlist unless you improve the scores. That's tricker to talk about because that actually runs off of GT score, which is seperate.

In my experience ASVAB is pretty decent for the lower percentages, but it gets wierd with folks in the top 15% or so. It's really not designed to deal with people smarter than the necessary scores to do things like run nuclear reactors and fight jet fighters.

And frankly, given some of the idiots hired for allegedly "customer service" jobs in the Real World, overall I prefer dealing with Soldiers. :)
 
Top