Michael Walzer has argued that membership in the political community entails in certain circumstances an obligation to die for the state. In this, he follows Hobbes, and to a greater degree Rousseau, though like Hobbes, but for somewhat different reasons, he is uneasy with the obligation and, in the upshot, hedges it in various ways. Hobbes and Rousseau are not (unlike Walzer) conspicuous contributors to, or advocates for, just war theory, and this is, I believe, significant, since adherence to just war theory makes it difficult to maintain an unqualified commitment to the obligation. Indeed, some of the most significant challenges to at least the scope of the obligation have come from conscientious objectors who do not reject war altogether, and often rely upon a just war perspective to legitimate their refusal of service. In what follows, I shall examine some of the problems raised by the idea that governments should legally accommodate such challenges in a nonpunitive way. Let us begin with Hobbes's discussion of the alleged obligation to die for the state.