Different Selective Service in the USA

[Hoplophile]

In our timeline, the policies of the US Selective Service system of the first two-thirds (or so) of the Cold War created a situation in which young men of relatively high intelligence were much less likely to be drafted than men of relatively low intelligence. One reason for this was the desire to promote the study of science and engineering by deferring (often to the point of de facto exemption) the service of students of those subjects. Another was the exemption of members of certain professions (such as teaching and the ministry) that, incidentally, were only open to men with higher education. (The great exception to this was the custom of drafting recently qualified medical doctors.) A third reason for the association between conscription and low general intelligence was the notorious "Project 100,000," which inducted (far more than 100,000) young men of sub-normal intelligence.

These policies had deep roots in American culture. Nonetheless, it is possible to imagine a very different Selective Service System, one in which the only men drafted were those who, in addition to being physically and morally qualified, were brighter than average. In such a system, each man conscripted would, in effect, have been rewarded with a badge that read "this man is healthy, socialized, and smart." To put things another way, those not conscripted would suffer from a social stigma similar to the one suffered by those who were conscripted in our own time line.

If the minimum standard of intelligence for conscription were set at an IQ of 101, the US Armed Forces of every year of the Cold War (to include the height of the Vietnam War) would have been able to fill all of its needs for first-term enlisted men with men who met that mark. (The largest number of Americans conscripted in one year - 551,806 - were inducted in 1951, the first full year of the Korean War. In that same year, there were 17,500 men of military age - 20 through 35 - in the country, about half of whom would have had an IQ of 101 or more.)

Of course, there is more to a military organization than rank-and-file, and so there would have to be policies to ensure that NCOs were at least as smart as the men that they led. One way to do this would be to restrict service as a career NCO to men of an even higher standard than the conscripts. Thus, the career NCO would earn a "social signal of smarts" that was even better than the one earned by a conscript. Similarly, officers would have to be very smart indeed, if only to keep pace with their clever NCOs and men. Thus, the minimum IQ score for career enlisted men would have to have been 110 or so and that for officers would be somewhere in the vicinity of 125.

So, what is the "so what" of this "what if?" How might a very different way of pressing young men into military service change the course taken by American society, institutions, and foreign policy?

[paulrward]

Hello Mr. Hoplophile ;

A brilliant concept. With some caveats:

First, historically, those who are of higher than normal intelligence will seek ways to avoid getting
killed by being conscripted into long, bloody, useless wars. ( HMMMMMM - I wonder how I know
this ? ) People of higher then normal intelligence tend to have leadership skills, and the mark
of a true leader is a person who can yell, " Follow ME !! ", and then stand still while the idiots go
past him into the Valley of Death. They also have the intelligence to discover ways to avoid military
service. ( HMMMMM - I wonder how I know this ? )

In addition, those who are of higher than normal intelligence tend to seek out spouses of similar
high intelligence, and produce offspring who are higher than normal intelligence. And, a basic
rule of survival is to find ways to prevent your offspring from being killed. Fish protect their
Fry, Alligators their Babies, Hawks their Chicks, and Bears their Cubs.

Smart Adults with smart children will discover ways to prevent their offspring from being sent
off to die in Kaffiristan. It is simple Darwinian Biology.

And, while we are talking about Darwin, one of the problems with France for the past two
centuries has been the steady destruction of their high quality Males. First under Napolean,
who killed hundreds of thousands ( some estimates are as high as a million young men died )
and, as a result, for the next century, the French Army was made up of the offspring of those
men who were less fit and capable. The result was disasters in the Crimea, Mexico, and
the Franco Prussian War.

France was just beginning to recover from this, when along came the Guns of August, which
essentially emasculated the nation of France. Again, the surviving men were those who were
unfit for military service, and their offspring went into the Field of Battle in the Spring of 1940.....
And we all know how well that turned out......

Finally, many years ago, a friend of mine showed me a fourth or fifth generation photocopy of
a Classified Report done by the Pentagon in the early 1970s. It seems that, after the Tet Offensive
in VietNam was over, for the rest of the year of 1968, Officer Casualties were in line with their
levels prior to Tet. However, starting in 1969, Officer Casualties began to rise with respect to
the level of casualties suffered by Enlisted Personnel. It varied from Service to Service, and from
Unit to Unit, but the rise was definite, measurable, and significant. And, the report included
studies done of Post Mortem examinations of Officer Casualties that indicated strongly that
a steadily increasing number, up until the end of the fighting, were the result of wounds inflicted
by Amercan Weapons.

In other words, FRAGGING......


One of the reasons you draft 19 year old Males is because, at that age, a young man is Invincible,
Indestructible, and Immortal. You don't want Smart soldiers, you want soldiers who are just
bright enough to be able to carry out orders, but not intelligent enough to realize that this might
get them killed.....

In other words, 19 year old former High School Football players with I.Q.s between 75 and 95,
who are just smart enough to want to take one for the Team....

The brighter guys you reserve for occupations that require more intelligence. Like Clerk Typist
at HQ, or a jet engine mechanic on an aircraft carrier. It takes longer to train these guys, and
the only way to get them trained before their drafted service ends is to sweeten the deal by
encouraging them to enlist for a longer term, during which they will receive better training, but
will NOT be sent into a jungle or a desert to die.

Remember, there are very few job opportunities in civilian life for a guy who's training was as
a Senior Fire Control Officer on an M-16 Rifle.... On the other hand, I know several guys who
got trained in the Air Farce and THE NAVY ! in electronics, who used that training after
getting out, parlaying it into very successful and profitable careers in California's Silicon Valley.


However, if you DID institute such a policy, it would be less than a decade before the smarter
young men were avoiding military service, ( as in our present day ) and leaving the fighting and
the dying to those not smart enought to avoid it. In other words, La Plus ca Change, La Plus ca
Meme Chose !


Respectfully

Paul R. Ward

[T. A. Gardner]

In our timeline, the policies of the US Selective Service system of the first two-thirds (or so) of the Cold War created a situation in which young men of relatively high intelligence were much less likely to be drafted than men of relatively low intelligence. One reason for this was the desire to promote the study of science and engineering by deferring (often to the point of de facto exemption) the service of students of those subjects. Another was the exemption of members of certain professions (such as teaching and the ministry) that, incidentally, were only open to men with higher education. (The great exception to this was the custom of drafting recently qualified medical doctors.) A third reason for the association between conscription and low general intelligence was the notorious "Project 100,000," which inducted (far more than 100,000) young men of sub-normal intelligence.

These policies had deep roots in American culture. Nonetheless, it is possible to imagine a very different Selective Service System, one in which the only men drafted were those who, in addition to being physically and morally qualified, were brighter than average. In such a system, each man conscripted would, in effect, have been rewarded with a badge that read "this man is healthy, socialized, and smart." To put things another way, those not conscripted would suffer from a social stigma similar to the one suffered by those who were conscripted in our own time line.

If the minimum standard of intelligence for conscription were set at an IQ of 101, the US Armed Forces of every year of the Cold War (to include the height of the Vietnam War) would have been able to fill all of its needs for first-term enlisted men with men who met that mark. (The largest number of Americans conscripted in one year - 551,806 - were inducted in 1951, the first full year of the Korean War. In that same year, there were 17,500 men of military age - 20 through 35 - in the country, about half of whom would have had an IQ of 101 or more.)

Of course, there is more to a military organization than rank-and-file, and so there would have to be policies to ensure that NCOs were at least as smart as the men that they led. One way to do this would be to restrict service as a career NCO to men of an even higher standard than the conscripts. Thus, the career NCO would earn a "social signal of smarts" that was even better than the one earned by a conscript. Similarly, officers would have to be very smart indeed, if only to keep pace with their clever NCOs and men. Thus, the minimum IQ score for career enlisted men would have to have been 110 or so and that for officers would be somewhere in the vicinity of 125.

So, what is the "so what" of this "what if?" How might a very different way of pressing young men into military service change the course taken by American society, institutions, and foreign policy?

This is completely untrue. You really have no idea about the draft in the US do you?

First, of the men conscripted by selective service (the draft), about a third are rejected during the induction process before being sworn into service. In some portions of the US it was as high as 50%. This holds true from WW 2 to Vietnam.

The most common reasons for rejection are low intelligence / incompetence, and medical issues. As part of the induction process, be it WW 2 or today, the draftee was made to take a comprehensive written exam (today the ASVAB) to determine his suitability for military service on an education and knowledge level. In the WW2 period the test was the Army General Classification Test or AGCT. The top scoring men were generally sent to technical jobs after bootcamp rather than into the infantry or a combat arm.

By Vietnam, a high school diploma was generally a requirement but those without could be accepted depending on their score in testing. Men found to have medical issues were often turned down and rejected. Age, marital status, having dependents (children), all played a role too and these things could get you rejected (too old, married, has kids and no alternative for care of them). Having a serious criminal record was almost always disqualifying too.

Officers were never directly drafted. You either applied for a commission after college graduation or for one upon completion of basic training based again on education and testing scores, along with unit NCO and officer recommendations.

NCOs were and are selected somewhat differently by service. The Navy selected Petty Officers and Chief Petty Officers by their competence in their particular rating, and in a Navy-wide selection process. The Army and USAF (when formed) both select those for promotion based on openings in the unit(s) within which they served. In WW 2, this selection was generally done by the officers on the recommendations of the NCOs in their unit.
Another oddity in the WW 2 period was NCOs could be demoted or even stripped of their rank at the pleasure of the officers in the unit, whereas once a Navy Petty Officer was promoted only judicial action (Mast or Court Martial) could strip them of rank.
In all cases, years of service are required to get promoted to NCO. Even a corporal or Petty Officer 3rd Class (equivalent) has a year or more of service completed before promotion.

During WW 2 one of the Army's projects--I forget the name of it--took a mass of Class 1 individuals (the highest intelligence category) and formed infantry divisions around them. These were men that likely otherwise would have been sent to highly technical jobs or been eligible for commissions as officers. They were instead formed into combat units and sent into combat where there was no appreciable improvement over the previous system in outcomes.

So, the dregs of society were not drafted into US military service, be it WW 2, Korea, or Vietnam, or anything in between. If anything, even draftees were a cut above the average for society.

[Hoplophile]

I recommend, for those interested in this topic, the following video, and, in particular, the book that it is based upon.

"McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. T.A. Gardner posted:

First, of the men conscripted by selective service (the draft), about a third
are rejected during the induction process before being sworn into service. In some
portions of the US it was as high as 50%. This holds true from WW 2 to Vietnam.

This is correct. But it doesn't mean that the Military is being selective, it simply means that those
individuals who are above average intelligence have learned to ' Game the System ' and have found
a way to fake a disorder, or have a friendly family physician who writes them up a diagnosis that
exactly fits a draft rejectable criterium.

I had a friend who got that nice, ' Greetings from the President of the United States ' letter. The
night before he was to show up at the Induction Center, he took a several ' Reds ' ( Seconal ),
and the next morning, before leaving for the Oakland Induction Center, he ate about a pound of
C&H Pure Cane Sugar. Just before walking in, he drank about a pint of wine and a pint of Apple
Juice, and took another Seconal.

When they examined him, his eyes were dilated, he had a reduced pulse, and his breath smelled
of Apples. They took a Urine Sample ( He was asking to use the men's room every fifteen minutes )
and he was spilling sugar like nobody's business. The Army Doctor took one look at him, and told
him he was Diabetic, and needed to see a Civilian Doctor ASAP. 1A to 4F in One Hour !

He went home, slept it off, and resumed his life. He spent his career working for companies like
Lockheed as an aerospace engineer.......

By Vietnam, a high school diploma was generally a requirement but those
without could be accepted depending on their score in testing.

In California, in the 1960s, if you dropped out of High School, the Principal would call the Draft Board.
And LOTS of guys were told by the Judge, " Five Years in State Prison or Six Years in the Marines - you
can take your choice ! "

During WW 2 one of the Army's projects--I forget the name of it--took a mass
of Class 1 individuals (the highest intelligence category) and formed infantry divisions
around them. These were men that likely otherwise would have been sent to highly
technical jobs or been eligible for commissions as officers. They were instead formed
into combat units and sent into combat where there was no appreciable improvement
over the previous system in outcomes.

Mr. Gardner is misinterpreting the Data. He believes that it shows that High Intelligence Individuals do not
perform better in combat than lower IQ soldiers. What it actually means that, when it comes to using
men as Cannon Fodder ( Infantry ) you can just as easily use the dumb ones as the smart ones, they die
the exact same way. Artillery fire and Machine guns do not discriminate on the basis of IQ.


Now, it is true, the Army has discovered that Soldiers with an IQ of less than 83 tend to screw up more
and are often a detriment to their units. This simply means that, when you have dangerous activities to
perform, which have high probabilities of death to those involved, you are better off sending in the
low IQ soldiers. If they accomplish the mission, well and good. If they die, well, they were of no great
value to the unit in the first place. This is what we call " WIN - WIN ! "


Jordan Peterson talks about soldiers with IQs of less then 83 :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnLvz2ktj9M



The Author of McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
gives a lecture on You Tube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g

This is worth watching just to see what the Military is capable of when ordered to do something really
stupid by a leader who has absolutely no clue.


Now, with the All Volunteer Army, which came about with the end of the Draft in the 1970s, the Army can
pick and choose. And, right now, they are less than half way to their annual recruiting goal for 2022. In
other words, if the Army weeds out the Stupid Ones, and the Smart Ones don't Volunteer, then you end up
with a VERY small Army......


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Hoplophile]

The program that put high IQ men drafted into the Army into college was called the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP). The original idea of the program was to create a pool of men who would be capable of serving as junior officers later in the war. In February of 1944, however, the shortage of infantrymen was such that the ASTP was disbanded, and a 110,000 college men in uniform found themselves in the infantry replacement pipeline.

They were not, alas, formed into new divisions. Rather, they were sent forward to existing units, where they often found themselves serving under NCOs (and, at times, officers) who were not nearly as clever as they were. (For an account of the experience of one such men, see the memoirs of Paul Fussell.)

The elimination of the college deferment in 1969 had a similar effect, sending a flood of high IQ privates into an Army which had learned to make do with officers and NCOs that were not nearly as bright. (Some of the latter had risen from the ranks. Others, however, were "shake and bake" graduates of the Non-Commissioned Officers Candidates Schools.)

These two episodes warn of the folly of injecting a large number of clever conscripts into a system that had not been designed to accommodate them. They also lead us back to the question posed at the beginning of this thread, which might be paraphrased as "what if the US Armed Forces of the years between 1946 and 1973 had been designed, from the start, for young men with a lot of "G-2."

[Hoplophile]

Here, by the way, is a short account of the ASTP, written by the author of a book on the subject: http://www.pierce-evans.org/ASTPinWWII.htm

[Carl Schwamberger]

My direct observation is that over time, a relatively short time to me, was the smarter guys rose up faster than the less capable. I as a Lt or Captain had a strong incentive to advance the smarter ones & sideline the others. In one case I replaced a Staff Sgt of 14 years service with a Corporal of less than three years. That was a extreme case but it was a relatively normal state for us. Some NCOs were stalled at E6 for the remainder of the career, or worse at E5. Meanwhile men with several years less service were advancing one or two grades past them. We were constrained to some extent by the slots budgeted for specific ranks/pay but that is far less the case during a actual war. Conversely the Up or Our policy institutionalized replacing stagnated performers with fresh men. This was occurring wholesale in the 1980s as low grade recruits who had been the only available men for promotion circa 1972 or 1975 were over run by the more capable entering the service a few years later.