Talk:Selective Service System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents


[edit] Why is it called 'selective service'?

Why is it called this? It appears there is nothing selective about it.

Ali0th (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete codes

How should obsolete draft codes be handled? For example, I wanted to remind myself of what 1-Y was, but found it missing. From a random article I was reminded: 1-Y Qualified for military service only in time of national emergency (classification eliminated 10-Dec-1971) Mulp 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1984

Removed entirely the statement that non-registration was at 13% by 1984. A reference to a Mennonite web page was given with it but had no support for it. Moved that ref up. Anybody who was an adult in the country in question at that time knows that that would probably be high for the compliance rate. Lycurgus 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreigners Comment

Not being from the U.S., I was wondering, What percentage of people actually register? (See the link to the complinace statistics and analysis.) What about moves in Congress to abolish Selective Service or to extend it to females? (None currently being seriously considered, as of May 2006. But the Selective Service System says that the Health Care Personnel Delivery System, if activated, would probbaly include females.)

I would assume that almost all register, as there are heavy fines if you do not. (No: see the link to the compliance statistics and analysis. Currently there is no serious threat of fines or criminal enforcement, although there are penalties such as ineligibility for Federal financial aid and Federal jobs.) And as far as I know there have been no plans to abolish it, or extend it to females. Mac Domhnaill

To answer the above question, it's awful close to 100% these days. (No: see the link to the compliance statistics and analysis.) No one's really afraid of being drafted anymore, so there's not much of a reason not to register. (No, and no.) But I'm wondering if anyone has any knowledge/interest in the stuff being reported here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/Military_Draft.html

1)When is the last time they punished someone for not registering? (The last indictment was in January 1986.) 2)If you claim that your gay, do they actually investigate it? (It varies. But you shouldn't count on being exempted if you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual: many observers belive that too many people would opt out of a draft on groaunds of being at least somewhat bisexual, and that "Don't ask, don't tell" discharge policies would not be sustainable in conjunction with a draft.( 3)As they're heterosexist, do they qualify bisexuals under class f-4? (Yes, as of now.)

[edit] Need for Selective Service/Census

Living in a country under a government that issues social security numbers, I really don't understand the need for 'Selective Service' at all. Not that the US wouldn't conceivably require a draft, it would just seem that the government should 'know' who is eligible to be drafted simply by social security records ie. you are automatically 'registered' for the draft at birth. Same goes for the census, you would think the government would already know where the citizens are living.

The government would only know where someone was living based on their social security number if and when the person files an annual tax return. Not everyone is required to file an annual tax return, such as if your annual income is very low or zero. Quacks Like a Duck 14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, SSNs are not "issued at birth" by the US government. Having a SSN is optional. 74.227.246.102 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Legal Issues"

Does any serious person or group contend that the draft is equivalent to slavery or involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment? Especially given that, as the article points out, the Supreme Court has ruled on that exact point? This sounds like one of these crackpot theories like that the income tax is illegal or that fringes on a flag make a court a military court. --Max power 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Draft?

I wonder if there should be some mention of the proposed (but not implemented) medical draft? It seems to re-surface from time to time in the news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Leap Year babies?

The "Lottery Procedures" section says that number 366 is only used for lotteries held in a leap year. But the year a lottery is held has nothing to do with the date on which a person was born. Does that really mean that "leap babies" would be exempt unless the lottery was held in a leap year? Sounds pretty strange to me. 86.132.143.247 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it works. But if you're conscripting people who are 20 years old (I presume this means on the day of conscription), then there is no point conscripting people born on a leap year unless it is the leap day (February 29th) 'til February 28th of the next year. By definition, there will be no people 20 years old born on a leap day except during that time. On the other hand it seems to me it will be simpler to just use 366 and worry about the other stuff later Nil Einne 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

Perhaps directing people to another site is not the best form for an overview. Perhaps someone could fix that, if no one is interested, I could try putting something together. Sir LoseALot (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] formed dates

why there are 2 dates in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.27.168 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)