The draft

[Eupher]

I absolutely reject anarchy as a different form of tyranny: the tyranny of lawlessness.  However, I do hold that an individual does not owe society his life, to be disposed of against his will.  I have thought through my premise, and I remain open to new information and arguments.  If I truly felt that the individual should pay nothing for the benefits he receives from living in a lawful society, I would not be typing on this computer, having this discussion.  That is a far cry, however, from what the draft is.  The draft is the government invoking the right to existence while denying that right to its citizens.  Because government is formed to protect individual rights, the draft is a perversion of both the government's existence and the inalienable right to life.  Remember, your rights stop where another's begin.

I also absolutely reject any sort of idea that the whole is worth more than the individual, as that is a core tenet of statism in all forms.  What that amounts to, in relation to the topic, is that some people in society have "more" right to life than others, an indefensible position in a free society.

I do acknowledge that my position may not be popular here, but that makes me all the more appreciate the chance to have the discussion.

Chump, did you ever serve in uniform? Any kind of uniform? Cop, firefighter, Navy cook, Marine rifleman?

I understand your point, but I could not disagree more with you. Along with DAT, I believe that we all have an obligation to serve and go in harm's way, particularly in times of great threat -- WWII probably being the biggest example.

In a time of our history when our fathers were fighting a global war on two fronts, where the Nazi machine and the Japanese empire truly threatened the entire world, I believe that those who went before us also considered it their duty. Many were drafted and many died performing that service of fulfilling that obligation to their countrymen.

I refuse to accept your notion that statism is driving the train when government -- in a time of genuine emergency -- calls its citizens to war.

That said, I also believe that the draft outlived its usefulness long before it actually ended. Deferments and the rest of the bullshit that allowed a lot of privileged, connected kids like Slick Willie to stay in school or outright lie to avoid service did nothing to level the playing field.

Bottom line is, when the country calls, I believe we as citizens have the duty to respond. You clearly don't believe that, and that's fine.

But I'm interested in getting your answer on whether or not you served.

[Chump]

Chump, did you ever serve in uniform? Any kind of uniform? Cop, firefighter, Navy cook, Marine rifleman?

I understand your point, but I could not disagree more with you. Along with DAT, I believe that we all have an obligation to serve and go in harm's way, particularly in times of great threat -- WWII probably being the biggest example.

In a time of our history when our fathers were fighting a global war on two fronts, where the Nazi machine and the Japanese empire truly threatened the entire world, I believe that those who went before us also considered it their duty. Many were drafted and many died performing that service of fulfilling that obligation to their countrymen.

I refuse to accept your notion that statism is driving the train when government -- in a time of genuine emergency -- calls its citizens to war.

That said, I also believe that the draft outlived its usefulness long before it actually ended. Deferments and the rest of the bullshit that allowed a lot of privileged, connected kids like Slick Willie to stay in school or outright lie to avoid service did nothing to level the playing field.

Bottom line is, when the country calls, I believe we as citizens have the duty to respond. You clearly don't believe that, and that's fine.

But I'm interested in getting your answer on whether or not you served.

No, I did not, in any uniform.

As much as you reject my reasoning, I also reject the idea that I'm obligated to do anything other than pay for what I receive.  I don't believe that the government, or society (the whole) has the right to life at the expense of my right to life.  That says nothing to my opinion about serving in general, or even about my opinion of war.  I can voluntarily fight to defend my country and still believe that the government has no right to force me to do so.

Look, also, at the core problem you touched on when you mentioned deferments and the obvious special treatment that "connected," "powerful" people received during the time of the draft.  It had nothing to do with the fact that the draft outlived its usefulness and everything to do with the fact that forcing people to dispose of their lives against their will for the sake of others tacitly purports that some people have "more" right to life than others.  So what's the outcome of that premise?  "Well, I don't want to give up my life, but I want you to.  Sign this paper, daddy.  Pull these strings."  Your very survival has nothing to do with your inalienable rights and everything to do with who you know and how much pull you have.  It's disgusting and anathema to a free society.

[Chump]

...
Bottom line is, when the country calls, I believe we as citizens have the duty to respond. You clearly don't believe that, and that's fine.
...

I wanted to highlight this because it's not fine.  If it were simply a matter of a difference of beliefs it would be fine, but this is an instance in which I'm laying claim to my inalienable right to life, and you're telling me the government can suspend that right because I have a duty or obligation to my fellow citizens.  Essentially, my life is disposable, at the government's discretion, in order to preserve the lives of others.

Consider this unlikely scenario: Obama finds some excuse to war with Israel, and gets enough support in Congress for a formal declaration.  The draft is instituted because of the grave threat from war with a nuclear power.  Do you have a duty to submit?

On edit, the above is a horrible, vague hypothetical.  I ask that you look at the broader point I was struggling to put out there.

[Eupher]

No, I did not, in any uniform.

As much as you reject my reasoning, I also reject the idea that I'm obligated to do anything other than pay for what I receive.  I don't believe that the government, or society (the whole) has the right to life at the expense of my right to life.  That says nothing to my opinion about serving in general, or even about my opinion of war.  I can voluntarily fight to defend my country and still believe that the government has no right to force me to do so.

Look, also, at the core problem you touched on when you mentioned deferments and the obvious special treatment that "connected," "powerful" people received during the time of the draft.  It had nothing to do with the fact that the draft outlived its usefulness and everything to do with the fact that forcing people to dispose of their lives against their will for the sake of others tacitly purports that some people have "more" right to life than others.  So what's the outcome of that premise?  "Well, I don't want to give up my life, but I want you to.  Sign this paper, daddy.  Pull these strings."  Your very survival has nothing to do with your inalienable rights and everything to do with who you know and how much pull you have.  It's disgusting and anathema to a free society.

This discussion threatens to go off on a tangent.

For me, it's real simple. The nation calls. If I'm called, I go.

I suspect that those who serve and who have served in uniform understand this very simple premise. We don't tend to get bogged down in "what-ifs" and "it's not fair."

Freedom is not free. Until you've been in a situation where your service makes a difference, you probably wouldn't understand that concept. It's about putting others before self. It's really all about the verb to serve.

Discussions about "inalienable rights" and whether Slick Willie and his cronies are sliding by because they know people are merely side issues. No system is perfect, and God knows that the draft - particularly during Vietnam - was especially vile. Student deferments and splitting hairs were the order of the day. I'd much prefer to keep it simple, because this isn't an intellectual exercise. It's real.

[Eupher]

I wanted to highlight this because it's not fine.  If it were simply a matter of a difference of beliefs it would be fine, but this is an instance in which I'm laying claim to my inalienable right to life, and you're telling me the government can suspend that right because I have a duty or obligation to my fellow citizens.  Essentially, my life is disposable, at the government's discretion, in order to preserve the lives of others.

Consider this unlikely scenario: Obama finds some excuse to war with Israel, and gets enough support in Congress for a formal declaration.  The draft is instituted because of the grave threat from war with a nuclear power.  Do you have a duty to submit?

On edit, the above is a horrible, vague hypothetical.  I ask that you look at the broader point I was struggling to put out there.

No, Chump, I'm not telling you the government can suspend your right to your life. The law does, potentially, as a result of instituting the draft. And while the law vis a vis the draft has changed, meaning the military is all-voluntary, registration for the draft is still compulsory. There are some pretty significant consequences for those who choose to ignore registering.

Before I forget to ask, did you register for the draft?

I honestly believe that you're turning this whole point into an intellectual exercise and while you've carefully considered your point and are articulating your point very well, you have little to no sense of obligation to your fellow citizens. You, and others, believe your "inalienable right to life" is sacrosanct and isn't subject to challenge by government, whose Constitutional duty it is to defend our country -- not just defend an individual's liberties.

There are bad guys in the world, and there always has been. To take the kind of position you're taking essentially ignores that fact.

The country, and by definition the government, has to have recourse in calling on its citizens to defend itself. It's really just that simple. The Constitution provides for that, and thus in times of great challenge, gives the power to the Congress to make laws and appropriate money "for the common defense." 

[DumbAss Tanker]

What that amounts to, in relation to the topic, is that some people in society have "more" right to life than others, an indefensible position in a free society.

And yet you apparently conceive that your life is worth more than that of the person who would have to go in your place.  Whether you choose to admit it or not, you are indeed a particular subspecies of Anarchist, with a guiding philosophy which if widely held would quickly break down any higher form of societal organization beyond the family, tribe, or village.

It's been illuminating, in showing just what varied and peculiar meanings people can have in mind when they say 'Conservative,' but I've said about all I've got to say in this thread.

[Chump]

This discussion threatens to go off on a tangent.

For me, it's real simple. The nation calls. If I'm called, I go.

I suspect that those who serve and who have served in uniform understand this very simple premise. We don't tend to get bogged down in "what-ifs" and "it's not fair."

Freedom is not free. Until you've been in a situation where your service makes a difference, you probably wouldn't understand that concept. It's about putting others before self. It's really all about the verb to serve.

Discussions about "inalienable rights" and whether Slick Willie and his cronies are sliding by because they know people are merely side issues. No system is perfect, and God knows that the draft - particularly during Vietnam - was especially vile. Student deferments and splitting hairs were the order of the day. I'd much prefer to keep it simple, because this isn't an intellectual exercise. It's real.

I appreciate that we have a difference of opinion here, and please understand that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and people like you, who served willingly in defense of an entire nation.  My reasons for never having served are the real side issue, none of them are good, and I'm more than willing to have a discussion about it in another thread.

But carry your premise out to its conclusion.  If the government can dispose of your life at will, regardless of your opinion about the worth of your sacrifice, then you literally have no freedom.  Freedom certainly is not free, but negating freedom itself is not the path to attaining nor defending it.  I asked earlier: if a free people does not rise willingly to meet a mortal threat, does that country deserve its freedom, or even its existence?  Even after our country's conception, when we were faced with fighting the world's greatest military force for our very survival, our military's leader and first President specifically exempted conscientious objectors from the draft order.  It's likely he was disgusted by the very idea, but he still did it.  Why do you think that is?

I don't think a discussion of deferments and reactions to the draft is tangential.  It's very germane to the core premise that the government can suspend its citizens' right to life.  The fact that those with political pull can and did preserve themselves at the expense of the "little people" should be among the greatest indictments of a mindset that says some people should be forced to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.

[Chump]

And yet you apparently conceive that your life is worth more than that of the person who would have to go in your place.  Whether you choose to admit it or not, you are indeed a particular subspecies of Anarchist, with a guiding philosophy which if widely held would quickly break down any higher form of societal organization beyond the family, tribe, or village.

I've already addressed these points.  I believe both I and this other person should not be compelled to dispose of our lives against our will.  The issue is that either one of us is being forced to do so in the first place.

It's been illuminating, in showing just what varied and peculiar meanings people can have in mind when they say 'Conservative,' but I've said about all I've got to say in this thread.

Fair enough.

[Eupher]

Chump:

But carry your premise out to its conclusion.  If the government can dispose of your life at will, regardless of your opinion about the worth of your sacrifice, then you literally have no freedom.  Freedom certainly is not free, but negating freedom itself is not the path to attaining nor defending it.  I asked earlier: if a free people does not rise willingly to meet a mortal threat, does that country deserve its freedom, or even its existence?  Even after our country's conception, when we were faced with fighting the world's greatest military force for our very survival, our military's leader and first President specifically exempted conscientious objectors from the draft order.  It's likely he was disgusted by the very idea, but he still did it.  Why do you think that is?

I don't think a discussion of deferments and reactions to the draft is tangential.  It's very germane to the core premise that the government can suspend its citizens' right to life.  The fact that those with political pull can and did preserve themselves at the expense of the "little people" should be among the greatest indictments of a mindset that says some people should be forced to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.

Again, you're over-analyzing the issue. Somebody up thread has already said that simply because a draft is imposed is not a death sentence. Why do you insist on making it sound that way? Is the idea of you serving others that repugnant that you've got to automatically assume that putting a uniform on means certain death?

I can assure you that when I enlisted to put the uniform on, I did so assuming that whatever would be put in my path, I'd survive it. Others with whom I've spoken in the past who were drafted looked at the whole thing like a 2-year interruption of their lives. Some lives, of course, were permanently interrupted -- but that isn't an overriding factor.

I'll answer your question about a free people willingly rising to meet a threat, but I believe that DAT answered that question as well. History shows that, especially in times of global war, a government just sort of wringing its hands and hoping that enough "little people" sign up to fight the bad guys and that the rest of the "little people" will willingly go without unlimited amounts of tires and gasoline and butter and meat is irresponsible. To meet a demonstrated threat, a government has a responsibility to marshall its resources to meet that threat. If a government fails to do that, and it's defeated, the people who the government represent suffer the consequences. History shows that annexation of territory, involuntary servitude, payment of booty, and subjugation have all happened to those who were defeated in war.

[Chump]

Chump:

Again, you're over-analyzing the issue. Somebody up thread has already said that simply because a draft is imposed is not a death sentence. Why do you insist on making it sound that way? Is the idea of you serving others that repugnant that you've got to automatically assume that putting a uniform on means certain death?

My response was that being compelled to dispose of your life against your will by risking it in war is a negation of your right to life.  If I, holding a gun, force you to jump off the roof of your house, are my actions any less evil because you might not even break anything and probably won't die?  Is the morality of my action determined by the risk to your person?

I can assure you that when I enlisted to put the uniform on, I did so assuming that whatever would be put in my path, I'd survive it. Others with whom I've spoken in the past who were drafted looked at the whole thing like a 2-year interruption of their lives. Some lives, of course, were permanently interrupted -- but that isn't an overriding factor.

No, it's not the overriding factor; it's the only factor.  I'm claiming my right to life as paramount.  If I choose to serve in the military as my expression of that right, so be it.  I'm also laying claim to the ability to not serve in military as my expression of that right.  Your opinion of my decision says nothing to do the underlying premise: that the government has no right to suspend my right to life.

I'll answer your question about a free people willingly rising to meet a threat, but I believe that DAT answered that question as well. History shows that, especially in times of global war, a government just sort of wringing its hands and hoping that enough "little people" sign up to fight the bad guys and that the rest of the "little people" will willingly go without unlimited amounts of tires and gasoline and butter and meat is irresponsible. To meet a demonstrated threat, a government has a responsibility to marshall its resources to meet that threat. If a government fails to do that, and it's defeated, the people who the government represent suffer the consequences. History shows that annexation of territory, involuntary servitude, payment of booty, and subjugation have all happened to those who were defeated in war.

You're absolutely right about the effects of war on a conquered people.  If the country in question is not filled with dread when faced with those consequences and does not rise voluntarily and willingly to meet that mortal threat, let it be swept into the dustbin of history as a disgusting display.  With that said, the government, society (the whole) has no more right to life than I do.  The government derives its very powers from the consent of the governed, and it exists to protect the rights of those it governs.  It simply cannot do that by negating any of those rights.  It's an illogical premise.

Edit: typo.

[Eupher]

My response was that being compelled to dispose of your life against your will by risking it in war is a negation of your right to life.  If I, holding a gun, force you to jump off the roof of your house, are my actions any less evil because you might not even break anything and probably won't die?  Is the morality of my action determined by the risk to your person?

No, it's not the overriding factor; it's the only factor.  I'm claiming my right to life as paramount.  If I choose to serve in the military as my expression of that right, so be it.  I'm also laying claim to the ability to not serve in military as my expression of that right.  Your opinion of my decision says nothing to do the underlying premise: that the government has no right to suspend my right to life.

You're absolutely right about the effects of war on a conquered people.  If the country in question is not filled with dread when faced with those consequences and does not rise voluntarily and willingly to meet that mortal threat, let it be swept into the dustbin of history as a disgusting display.  With that said, the government, society (the whole) has no more right to life than I do.  The government derives its very powers from the consent of the governed, and it exists to protect the rights of those it governs.  It simply cannot do that by negating any of those rights.  It's an illogical premise.

Edit: typo.

This discussion is going nowhere, I'm afraid. I tend to agree with DAT - you're an anarchist. Government, as detestable and disgusting as it's been over the years, does have a role. The Constitution defines that role. Your own words pretty much confirm that, in your world, the Constitution does not empower the government to take measures necessary to defend itself. As the government cannot allocate itself toward its own defense, it must rely on the people. And if the people cannot or will not see the threat, the government has an obligation to prepare itself for that possibility. That means calling on you, me, and others who are able-bodied and of sound mind to do what's necessary -- even if the government has to compel the people.

I submit that once you take measures and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it doesn't take long to recognize a potential enemy. You're sounding very much like one of those, Chump.

And I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked earlier -- if you had registered for the draft. I believe I remember you saying some weeks ago that you're past that age.

[Chump]

This discussion is going nowhere, I'm afraid. I tend to agree with DAT - you're an anarchist. Government, as detestable and disgusting as it's been over the years, does have a role. The Constitution defines that role. Your own words pretty much confirm that, in your world, the Constitution does not empower the government to take measures necessary to defend itself. As the government cannot allocate itself toward its own defense, it must rely on the people. And if the people cannot or will not see the threat, the government has an obligation to prepare itself for that possibility. That means calling on you, me, and others who are able-bodied and of sound mind to do what's necessary -- even if the government has to compel the people.

I have not once said the government has no right to defend itself.  I have not even implied it.  I have said consistently that the government has no more right to life than I do.  I do not exist for the sake of the government, and the government has no right to compel to me to dispose of my life against my will.  Carrying that premise further, you or any number of people who agree with you have no right to compel me to dispose of my life against my will.  This does not mean I think war is wrong or that people should not defend themselves and their country.  Rather, I think they should be allowed the decision to defend themselves or not.  Again, I do not think people should be compelled, against their will, to exist or die for the sake of the existence or death of anyone else, or their government

I submit that once you take measures and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it doesn't take long to recognize a potential enemy. You're sounding very much like one of those, Chump.

Do you really believe that, or are you attempting to begin an ad hominem line of attack against me for no reason other than that we're in disagreement?  I would submit that if I felt you were a potential enemy to the United States and Constitution, I would not even be having this discussion with you.  I have nothing to say to enemies of the U.S.

And I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked earlier -- if you had registered for the draft. I believe I remember you saying some weeks ago that you're past that age.

Yes, I did.  When I said I was past that age, I was referencing the range from which men are selected for the draft.  IIRC, that's 18-25.  I registered for Selective Service at 18 as required by law.

ETA: I didn't respond to the post in which you posed that question because you had already made a later post by that time.  I felt it would've disrupted the discussion.  If there's anything else I missed then feel free to bring it up again.



If this is devolving I'm willing to just drop it.  However, calling me an anarchist of any sort is silly and I'll continue to dimiss it out-of-hand unless you have some sort of basis for that accusation.  Referring to me as a potential enemy to the U.S. and COTUS is completely out of line, untrue, and insulting.

[Eupher]

You've got to keep it in context, Chump. Anybody who scoffs at the Constitution and what it empowers the government to do is a potential enemy to me -- but that doesn't make you one.

Anarchy is, by definition, "absence of government." In this instance you're insisting the government does not have a right to compel military service and, presumably by extension, a possible death sentence  . You're wrong, because the Selective Service Act provides that right. The SSA was passed by Congress and thus became law decades ago.

No SCOTUS that I'm aware of has declared SSA unconstitutional.

Therefore, you're railing on about something that is a non-issue. By law, the government does have the right to require registration for the draft and even to conscript people for compulsory service. That's the way it is.

We can burn up tons of electrons in discussion, I suppose, but for me, this thread has run its course.

[Chump]

Fair enough.  Imagine if I were to say to you that you were beginning to sound like a potential enemy to the U.S. and COTUS.  I imagine my reaction was rather tame in comparison.

Let's examine what the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to do in relation to the military:


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

As explicit as those enumerated powers are, you would have to resort to a semantic argument over the word "raise" in order to argue that Congress has the power to compel men to dispose of their lives against their will.  I have very little doubt that that power doesn't exist in the Constitution because it specifically negates the very first God-given, inalienable right our Founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.  And again, compelling men to risk their lives against their will suspends their right to life.  The final outcome does not matter at all because the initial compulsion by force is the issue.  Remember, just because you might not break your leg after I force you to jump from your roof does not make me any less evil.

Yes, I'm well aware that Selective Service is the law of the land.  If your argument is that the government has the right to compel men to dispose of their lives, against their will, for the sake of the lives of others simply because it does, in fact, do that, then you're right that this thread has run its course.

As to the accusation that I am an anarchist: it's laughable at face value because I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread that anarchy is the tyranny of lawlessness.  Any group of looters with more guns than me is my de facto ruler, and I have no recourse.  I value proper government because it exists to protect my inalienable rights from the threat of force.  Because I value proper government, it's particularly revolting to me to see it suggested that my inalienable right to life should be subject to the government, or society (the whole).  The very core tenet of statism is that the citizen is beholden and belongs to the state.

[rich_t]

If I, holding a gun, force you to jump off the roof of your house, are my actions any less evil because you might not even break anything and probably won't die?

You point a gun at me, I will make you use it, else I will take it from you and beat you death with it or die trying.

I'm claiming my right to life as paramount.

So you would run away if one of your loved ones were in danger?  Your life is worth more to you than their's is?

Would you have me die in your stead?

[rich_t]

Hey Chump, if you so vehemently disagree with the draft, why did you register with the selective service when you were 18, as required by law?

You do know that the sole purpose of that registration is to maintain a "draft pool" right?

[Ree]

Is the draft reasonable?
not in this day and age....

[rich_t]

Is the draft reasonable?
not in this day and age....

Based on what in your opinion?

[rich_t]

For Chump and those like him.

For those too cowardly to serve regardless of how they spin the reason.

http://thewarriorsong.com/video.html

[thundley4]

Hey Chump, if you so vehemently disagree with the draft, why did you register with the selective service when you were 18, as required by law?

You do know that the sole purpose of that registration is to maintain a "draft pool" right?

I never registered with Selective Service, even though I turned 18 in 1979.  I didn't get a letter reminding me to until March of 1980 just after I got out of boot camp .

[Chump]

You point a gun at me, I will make you use it, else I will take it from you and beat you death with it or die trying.

The hypothetical I posed was in response to the argument that because one might not die in war, one can be compelled to risk their life.  You are right with this response though.  Compulsion through threat of force at the end of a gun is an evil worth fighting, which has been my position throughout this thread.

So you would run away if one of your loved ones were in danger?

No.

Your life is worth more to you than their's is?

No.

Would you have me die in your stead?

What?  Of course not.

[Chump]

Hey Chump, if you so vehemently disagree with the draft, why did you register with the selective service when you were 18, as required by law?

You do know that the sole purpose of that registration is to maintain a "draft pool" right?

I obeyed the law and thought very little of it at the time.  I was more interested in graduating high school and heading off to college than I was in my philosophical stance on inalienable rights and how they are expressed in a free society.  My stance has since changed over the years.

[Chump]

For Chump and those like him.

For those too cowardly to serve regardless of how they spin the reason.

http://thewarriorsong.com/video.html

I'm offering no reasons as an excuse to not serve.  I'm saying, over and over, that no one can have their life disposed of against their will.  Your response above - attempting to convince someone by appealing to their patriotism - is the only proper way to recruit.  Compulsion through threat of force is not.

Put it another way, if I reject the theme found in the warrior song and still refuse to serve in the military, is it reasonable for you, with other agents of the government, to handcuff me and send me anyway?  You can call me a coward as much as you'd like, it still does not give you the right to suspend my right to life.

[Eupher]

I never registered with Selective Service, even though I turned 18 in 1979.  I didn't get a letter reminding me to until March of 1980 just after I got out of boot camp .

Registration with Selective Service was suspended from about mid-1975 until about 1980. There was no requirement to register during those years. But the gubmint fired it up again and it's been a requirement since 1980. It looks like you didn't miss a thing!

[thundley4]

Registration with Selective Service was suspended from about mid-1975 until about 1980. There was no requirement to register during those years. But the gubmint fired it up again and it's been a requirement since 1980. It looks like you didn't miss a thing!

But they did send me the reminder to register after I had completed boot camp, I was still in BE&E School at Great Lakes.