A study estimated the impacts of returning to a draft on the federal budget, the effectiveness of the active-duty force, and the civilian economy. It investigated how industrialized countries raise and manage their armed forces. Experts offered arguments on the purported advantages and disadvantages of a force comprised of volunteers only, as opposed to a mixed force of draftees and volunteers. In contrast to earlier studies that estimated higher costs for a draft, this study found that a draft would result in budgetary savings. The draft force would be much less effective because it would have 26 percent fewer careerists and 51 percent more personnel in the first 2 years of service than the current volunteer force. The draft would result in a larger pool of reservists. Another finding was that such steps as increasing the force size could be taken to counteract the loss of force effectiveness, but these measures would lower estimated budgetary savings. Updating data from previous studies showed that the costs (resources lost to the civilian economy) of a draft could range from $3 to $9 billion annually. Countries that draft were found to have experienced significant ground combat and have larger standing forces, proportionately more manpower in their armies, shorter terms of service, and more developed reserve structures than insular countries that rely on volunteers to meet manpower requirements. (YLB)