If your country doesn't have it, should it have mandatory military service?

[Ingvina Freyr]

The thought that all conscripts are bad soldiers and hired soldiers are much better is simply wrong! There are good hired soldiers and crappy hired soldiers, just as there are good conscripted soldiers as well as crappy conscripted soldiers. It all comes down to constitution, motivation and education of the soldiers.

 

[Grisu]

The thought that all conscripts are bad soldiers and hired soldiers are much better is simply wrong! There are good hired soldiers and crappy hired soldiers, just as there are good conscripted soldiers as well as crappy conscripted soldiers. It all comes down to constitution, motivation and education of the soldiers.

well, I can't think of conscripts ever be even remotely as effective as pros (if that were the case, professional soliders would really be doing something wrong). Yes, it comes down to motivation, and most people don't have a very high motivation to be forced to serve in the army. You should see how motivated my company usually is

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The thought that all conscripts are bad soldiers and hired soldiers are much better is simply wrong! There are good hired soldiers and crappy hired soldiers, just as there are good conscripted soldiers as well as crappy conscripted soldiers. It all comes down to constitution, motivation and education of the soldiers.

A solider who day in day out trains both physically and in respect of the latest equipment and army methods is going to be better than some who learned to point and shoot 10 years ago.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I learned "to point and shoot" over ten years ago and I'm sure that I am a better soldier than many of the "professionals" I see from time to time. As I said, it has to do with wich kind of individual you are as well as what kind of training you go trough.

Putting a uniform on a simpleton and paying him a salary, doesn't make him anything more than a simpleton with a salary. EDIT: And a gun!

 

[Princeps]

It's not about serving the state, it's about defending your community.

Military service in the US is often more about fighting for the benefit of the few, than actually defending the community.

 

[Grisu]

It's not about serving the state, it's about defending your community.

and you're welcome to join the army and do it that way if you wish, just keep me out of it.

 

[Disgustipated]

In a way, he has a point. Some people take pride in their job, no matter what job they have. I'm one of those people. I simply cannot do a crappy job. though I'm a bit of a perfectionist as well. but I try very hard to be the best at my job, no matter what it is.

If I was forced into the military, I'd try to be the best I can. But I have a different mindset than most people. Many people would have a bad attitude.

A lot of it is based on individual abilities and work ethic. But my opinion is biased since I already served. And I served in a field I chose mainly to enhance my career. I can't say exactly what I would do if I had to be infantry. But I'd like to think I'd try the best I can. Thankfully, I never had to be a grunt.

 

[Winner]

Defending my community from what?

There is simply no need for mandatory military service in the UK. We aren't threatened by any foriegn nation with conventional army and thus having millions of partially trained people isn't the way to go. We already have the 2nd highest military spending in the World, we simply can't afford to spend more training people who might not be used later.

It's considered better for us to have a small but highly trained and advanced force than simply crowding the battlefield with what will effectively be cannon fodder.

The other point is that by establishing a mandatory military service you are losing a year's, or more, worth of tax revenue. I'm pretty sure the Government would prefer to take a percentage of the money I'm earning now than have me running up and down hills for 12 months.

From any threat. That's the idea behind it.

As I said, I don't support the mandatory military service, but I refuse to see it only as another kind of oppression.

In today's world, highly trained professional force is what we need. That doesn't mean the need can't or won't change in the future.

 

[Winner]

and you're welcome to join the army and do it that way if you wish, just keep me out of it.

(that's what I wanted to say to the commission which was trying to determine if I was fit for the military service )

Again, I agree that in today's (western) world, it is probably obsolete and useless. I just wanted to say that it is not a pure evil.

Look at Israel. Their mandatory military service is necessary for the very survival of the country. Every citizen fit for service has to contribute to the defense of his state, it's his responsibility. You can't just say "keep me out of it", because that would mean you enjoy the rights and other benefits provided to you by the state, but you refuse to offer your services in order to protect it.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

From any threat. That's the idea behind it.

'Any threat' seems kind of vague. Almost as if you don't really have an answer.

As I said, I don't support the mandatory military service, but I refuse to see it only as another kind of oppression.

I don't see it as 'oppression' really. But the way I see it, when a solider signs up, he loses the right to choose where and when to fight. Much like Lt. Whatshisface in the US, if he didn't want to go to Iraq because he felt the war was illegal, he shouldn't have signed up.

That 'black and white' issue becomes more grey if compulsory service is brought into it.

In today's world, highly trained professional force is what we need. That doesn't mean the need can't or won't change in the future.

Speed and flexibility are what a modern army needs. Both of these are reduced by using poorly trained and under motivated 'grunts'.

 

[Winner]

'Any threat' seems kind of vague. Almost as if you don't really have an answer.

I don't see it as 'oppression' really. But the way I see it, when a solider signs up, he loses the right to choose where and when to fight. Much like Lt. Whatshisface in the US, if he didn't want to go to Iraq because he felt the war was illegal, he shouldn't have signed up.

That 'black and white' issue becomes more grey if compulsory service is brought into it.

Speed and flexibility are what a modern army needs. Both of these are reduced by using poorly trained and under motivated 'grunts'.

See my next post.

 

[Bast]

I agree with your statement Bast, and especially the part about contributing to one's country wich also means being part of a greater community. Here's the model I would like to see for my country:

All young people (males and females) are obliged to serve for at least one, but up to three semesters (6-18 months) depending on their kind of work. The government will ultimately decide where and how people will serve but as much as possible follow personal requests. Education or plans for a future education should be taken into concideration so to make the serving period not a break from young peoples ordinary life but a good and contributing part of their way from adolescent to adult.

There should be a choice between military or civil service. The military of course being the army, navy or air force, while civil service could mean temporary police assignments (directing traffics, search-parties etc), ambulance-driving or other tasks at a hospital, working at the fire department or perhaps as a counsellor or psychiatrist if it's a part of a longer education.

While military service may be tougher and longer it would require less from the individuals when done (unless there is a war of course). Civil service on the other hand would mean the possibility of being drafted later in case of emergencies above "normal", for example natural disasters, traffic accidents involving a great number of people or terrorist attacks (a term currently in fashion).

That's a great idea.

But obviously I'm not surprised by the general response. There are too many people in our countries that would sooner join the enemy should a conflict arise. Frankly, I think it's disgusting and I think something should be done.

 

[Grisu]

That's a great idea.

But obviously I'm not surprised by the general response. There are too many people in our countries that would sooner join the enemy should a conflict arise. Frankly, I think it's disgusting and I think something should be done.

ahhh, I wondered when 'you're unpatriotic, un-insertyourcountryan' would enter the debate

 

[Bast]

From any threat. That's the idea behind it.

As I said, I don't support the mandatory military service, but I refuse to see it only as another kind of oppression.

In today's world, highly trained professional force is what we need. That doesn't mean the need can't or won't change in the future.

Well, you've hit the nail right there. We don't need it technically now but doesn't mean we won't in the future. Why not prepare now? It's not like they're going to go to war, it's just training.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

See my next post.

Fair enough, but I was responding to the question as relates to my country. I imagine the same would go for most Europeans though.

Why not prepare now? It's not like they're going to go to war, it's just training.

Because it's a monstrous waste of cash and limits our ability to engage in conflicts now, rather than 'maybe' threats?

 

[cthom]

in the uk the army does not want a return of national service.

In addition, as early as 1949, it had become apparent to political and military leaders that the principal of universal liability to national service was a double-edged sword: not only was it supplying more men than the services could absorb, but it was draining resources to train them, and taking fit and able young men out of the economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/peacetime_conscripts_03.shtml

i really tire of the 'give them a dose of army life' advocates in particular. i personally do want unmotivated undisciplined thugs sent for a year or two to become well trained, organised thugs. the military may teach discipline, but it doesn't necessarily teach anyone to abide by the law.

 

[Grisu]

Again, I agree that in today's (western) world, it is probably obsolete and useless. I just wanted to say that it is not a pure evil.

ah, I see, then I misunderstood you

Well, you've hit the nail right there. We don't need it technically now but doesn't mean we won't in the future. Why not prepare now? It's not like they're going to go to war, it's just training.

yeah, let's train a huge conscript army, we don't need it, and it's not like they're going to war, but let's just train them, the budget's got some surplus anyway /sarcasm

 

[Truronian]

Give reasons for your answer.

I think we should have it for young people (males and females) between 18-20, because it will teach them discipline and let them give a little something back to their countries. This is especially relevant for young people in western countries who find it easy to sit around and criticize their governments. This will give them a different perspective and a little taste of what our ancestors fought for in World Wars.

Sounds like forced patriotism... and I'm pretty sure our ancestors fought for peace, something that mandatory military service doesn't really gel with.

Out of curiosity, why do 18-20 year olds need discipline?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

This is especially relevant for young people in western countries who find it easy to sit around and criticize their governments.

Is this a bad thing?

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Is this a bad thing?

No, it's not only right but also your duty.

Demanding a lot without giving anything back though.....