Perplexed

 Perplexity AI:                                         

Was opposition to the Vietnam War in the US principally a Baby Boomer phenomenon?

Opposition to the Vietnam War in the United States is often associated with the Baby Boomer generation, particularly because many Baby Boomers were coming of age during the height of the conflict and were directly affected by the military draft. The draft mobilized Baby Boomers, who were most at risk of being conscripted, and this risk played a significant role in fueling youth activism and protest movements. Many Baby Boomers participated in the widespread counterculture and antiwar movements, and their activism became a defining feature of their generation.

However, while Baby Boomers were central to the antiwar movement-especially as college students and young adults-the opposition was not exclusively or even principally a Baby Boomer phenomenon. The movement quickly grew to include a much broader cross-section of American society. Early opposition involved pacifists, leftists, and organizations such as the Committee for Sane Nuclear Policy and Women Strike for Peace, many of whose members were from older generations. As the war escalated, the movement expanded to include civil rights activists, feminists, labor unions, clergy, educators, military veterans, and even some older adults and mothers concerned about the draft's impact on their children.

In summary, while Baby Boomers were highly visible and influential within the antiwar movement-largely because of their age, numbers, and vulnerability to the draft-the opposition to the Vietnam War was much broader, involving people from various generations and social backgrounds. It was not principally a Baby Boomer phenomenon, but rather a mass movement that reflected widespread dissent across American society.

But because of their age, Boomers were the ones being drafted. How did the draft issue finally resolve itself in the US?

The issue of the draft during the Vietnam War was deeply contentious, especially for Baby Boomers, who were the primary age group being conscripted. The draft brought the war directly into American homes, fueling widespread protest and resistance, particularly among young men facing the possibility of being sent to fight in a controversial conflict.

Resolution of the Draft Issue:

Political Pressure and Reform: As opposition to the war and the draft intensified, President Richard Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 on a promise to end the draft, took steps to reform the system. He established the Gates Commission to study the feasibility of an all-volunteer force. The commission concluded that the military could meet its needs without conscription, provided pay and conditions improved.

Legislative Action: Nixon signed legislation in September 1971 to put the Selective Service System on "standby," signaling the beginning of the end for active conscription. However, the draft continued until early 1973, with the last men inducted in December 1972.

End of Conscription: On January 27, 1973, as the Vietnam War was winding down, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced that there would be no further draft calls. The U.S. military transitioned to an all-volunteer force, ending nearly three decades of continuous conscription.

Aftermath: While the Selective Service System remained in place for contingency purposes (requiring men aged 18-25 to register), no one has been drafted since 1973. The move to an all-volunteer military fundamentally changed the relationship between American society and its armed forces.

In summary, the draft issue was resolved through a combination of political pressure, policy reform, and legislative action, culminating in the end of conscription in January 1973 and the establishment of an all-volunteer military.

What is the situation with respect to the possibility of a draft in Canada, the UK, the EU indeed the US itself. Does registration continue to this day?

Current Status of Conscription and Draft Registration in Canada, the UK, the EU, and the US

Canada

Canada does not have conscription or a draft. The Canadian Armed Forces are entirely volunteer-based, and current efforts are focused on modernizing and streamlining the recruitment process to attract more volunteers and address personnel shortages.

There is no requirement for Canadian citizens or residents to register for a draft, and there are no active plans to introduce conscription.

United Kingdom

The UK abolished mandatory national service (conscription) in 1960. As of May 2025, conscription is not in place, and the British military remains all-volunteer.

However, the Conservative Party has proposed bringing back a form of mandatory national service if they win the next general election. This would give 18-year-olds the option to serve either one year full-time in the military or participate in community service one weekend per month.

Despite these proposals, the current Labour government has stated it is not considering conscription, though some defense experts and former military leaders have called for its reconsideration in light of security concerns.

European Union

The situation varies by country. Some EU member states, such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, have maintained or reintroduced some form of conscription, particularly after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Other EU countries rely on professional, volunteer forces. There is growing debate and some public support for reintroducing national service in several countries, but there is no EU-wide draft or registration system.

The EU as an institution does not have authority over national conscription policies; these remain the responsibility of individual member states.

United States

The US has not had active conscription since 1973, when the military transitioned to an all-volunteer force.

However, the Selective Service System remains in place. All male US citizens and permanent residents aged 18-25 are legally required to register with the Selective Service. This registration is for contingency purposes only; there is no active draft, but the system could be reactivated by Congress in a national emergency.

Registration with the Selective Service continues to this day.

                                                                       

In summary:

Conscription is not currently active in Canada, the UK, or the US, though the US maintains draft registration. In the EU, some member states have conscription, but most do not, and there is no unified EU draft system. The topic is under renewed debate in Europe and the UK due to changing security concerns

How has the move to a professional army changed the Military in the US. Has anyone commented on possible drawbacks?

How the Move to a Professional Army Changed the US Military

Transformation and Professionalization

The end of conscription in 1973 and the shift to an all-volunteer force (AVF) led to a fundamental transformation of the US military. The Army, and the broader armed forces, became more professional, selective, and focused on quality over quantity. Recruitment standards were raised, and the military began to attract more capable, motivated individuals, often with higher educational attainment and aptitude scores.

Training and doctrine were overhauled. The military moved from time-based to performance-based training, emphasizing mastery of tasks and standards rather than simply completing set periods of instruction. This shift dramatically improved readiness and effectiveness.

Leader development was revamped, with a new focus on values, professionalism, and a “select-train-promote” model for officers and NCOs. The Army embedded core values such as loyalty, duty, and integrity into its education and evaluation systems.

The AVF facilitated the adoption of advanced technology and complex equipment, as a more professional force could be trained to operate and maintain sophisticated systems, contributing to battlefield success in conflicts like the Gulf War.

Drawbacks and Criticisms

Social and Strategic Concerns

Some commentators have noted that the AVF, while broadly representative, is less reflective of the full spectrum of American society than a conscript force. There is concern that military service is increasingly concentrated among certain geographic, socioeconomic, or familial groups, potentially creating a “civil-military gap”.

The high cost of recruiting, training, and retaining volunteers has been a persistent challenge. Maintaining a professional force requires substantial investment in pay, benefits, and quality-of-life improvements, which can strain defense budgets.

There are worries about the long-term sustainability of the volunteer model, especially during periods of low unemployment or when public support for military engagements wanes. Recruiting shortfalls have occurred during such times, raising questions about the force’s ability to expand rapidly in a crisis.

Some analysts have argued that the AVF can foster a sense of professional isolation and even elitism within the military, potentially undermining the traditional notion of the “citizen-soldier” and weakening democratic oversight or public engagement in military affairs.

Institutional and Cultural Challenges

The transition to a professional force required new management systems, market-based recruiting strategies, and a redefinition of military professionalism. Some critics have noted that the Army has at times struggled to adapt its culture and leadership to these changes, with debates about what constitutes “Army Professionalism” and how best to sustain it.

The shift has also led to a greater reliance on career personnel, which, while increasing experience and expertise, may reduce the infusion of fresh perspectives that conscription once provided.

                                                                                

In summary:

The move to a professional, all-volunteer US military has increased quality, professionalism, and effectiveness, but has also raised concerns about cost, representativeness, and the relationship between the military and wider society. These potential drawbacks have been noted by military analysts, policymakers, and scholars.

How has the age profile of the US military changed given the move to an AVF?

Changes in the Age Profile of the US Military Since the Move to an All-Volunteer Force (AVF)

Older Average Age

The average age of both enlisted personnel and officers in the US military has increased since the end of the draft in 1973. In 1973, the average age of an enlisted member was 25; by 2015, it had risen to just over 27. For officers, the average age increased from 32.1 to 34.5 over the same period.

Age Distribution

Although the military remains younger than the general US population due to strict age limits, its age profile has shifted upward. In 2015, about two-thirds of active-duty personnel were 30 or younger, and only about 9% were older than 40.

Age profiles differ by service branch: for example, about 70% of enlisted Marines are 24 or younger, while the Coast Guard tends to have older members.

Contributing Factors

The increase in average age is partly due to longer careers, higher retention rates, and a focus on professionalism and experience within the AVF.

The military’s greater reliance on career service members, as opposed to a constant influx of young draftees, also contributes to this older age profile.

Key Takeaway:

Since the transition to an all-volunteer force, the US military has grown older on average, reflecting longer careers and a more professionalized force, though it remains a predominantly young institution compared to the civilian population.

Where are women found in this new Military?

Widespread Presence Across Roles and Ranks

Women now serve in every branch of the US military and occupy a wide range of roles, including combat positions, leadership posts, technical specialties, and support functions. Nearly 18–20% of the total force is female, reflecting a significant increase in both numbers and visibility over the past decade.

Combat Roles

Since 2015, all combat positions have been open to women, allowing them to serve as infantry, pilots, special forces officers, and in other roles previously closed to them. Hundreds of women have graduated from elite programs such as Army Ranger School and have completed Navy SEAL officer assessments, demonstrating their ability to meet the highest standards.

Leadership

Women have achieved historic milestones in leadership, including serving as battalion commanders, flying combat missions, and even leading a combatant command. However, as of 2025, the highest ranks-four-star general or admiral-are currently without female representation due to recent leadership changes and firings.

Integration and Support

Mixed-gender training and units are now common, even in traditionally resistant branches like the Marine Corps. Surveys indicate that most men who serve alongside women support a gender-integrated military, and public support for women in combat roles has grown steadily, with two-thirds of Americans now in favor.

Current Challenges

Recent policy shifts and leadership changes have introduced uncertainty about the future of women’s roles, particularly in combat and senior leadership. The Pentagon is currently re-examining standards for women in combat, and some programs supporting women’s advancement have been eliminated. Advocates are concerned these moves could limit opportunities and undermine progress.

Summary

Women are found throughout the modern US military-in combat, command, technical, and support roles. They make up nearly a fifth of the force, serve in every branch, and have broken barriers in both combat and leadership. However, recent political and policy changes have created new debates about the extent and permanence of their integration, especially at the highest levels.

                                                                        *     *     *

Copilot:

National Military Forces; is there an accepted metric that allows one to compare the strength of the military in different countries?

Yes, there are several metrics used to compare military strength across different countries. One widely recognized system is the PowerIndex (PwrIndx), used by Global Firepower, which ranks nations based on a combination of factors, including:

Manpower: Total population, available military personnel, and active/reserve forces.

Equipment: Tanks, aircraft, naval assets, and artillery.

Defense Budget: Financial resources allocated to military spending.

Logistics & Infrastructure: Airports, ports, roadways, and supply chains.

Geopolitical Influence: Alliances, overseas bases, and strategic positioning.

Technology & Modernization: Advanced weaponry, cyber capabilities, and research investments.

The PowerIndex assigns a numerical value to each country, where a lower score indicates greater military strength. For example, in 2025, the United States leads with a PowerIndex of 0.0744, followed by Russia and China, both at 0.0788.

Another approach is Military Watch Magazine’s algorithm-based ranking, which evaluates over 50 different factors, including combat readiness, training, and defensive infrastructure.

Would you like a comparison between specific countries? I can help break it down further!

https://forceindex.militarywatchmagazine.com/national_ranking