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

[Atlas14]

Absolutely not. Conscription is slavery, no matter what the courts say.

Conscription is freedom. Without conscription in a time of need, your freedom wouldn't exist.

 

[Bill3000]

As much as I completely hate the idea (I voted no) there are some benefits - see Germany and the services that mandatory military service provides - the civilian services, which provides care facilities for children and elderly people, for example.

 

[sonorakitch]

A conscript army lacks the quality and effectiveness inherant in a volunteer army. For this reason, the US should not have mandatory military service.

But I know some people on CFC who would benefit from a little service!

~Chris

 

[Princeps]

A conscript army lacks the quality and effectiveness inherant in a volunteer army.

On the contrary, a conscript army has very diverse skills and combined with a professional core, training crew and officers, it can be very effective. Not that I defend it.

 

[Irish Caesar]

And how is mandatory miltary service any different form that?

At least with community service, people see a different side of tehir society they otherwise would never have seen and gain a greater understanding of their country and community as a whole, which in a democracy, is pretty much a necessity.

I'm not saying that it would be a bad thing, or that mandatory military service is a good thing. Merely pointing out that people doing community service because they have to does not build any character or anything else, in general.

 

[Norton II]

Conscription is freedom. Without conscription in a time of need, your freedom wouldn't exist.

America has only fought two wars in which its freedom was at stake: the Revolution and the War of 1812 (and I'm not so sure about that one). In neither case was conscription used, and it proved unnecessary--we won both wars. For that matter, no draft was needed in the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War, and our freedom wasn't even remotely threatened in either of those wars.

The only American wars in which the draft was used were wars in which we were defending other countries (the two World Wars) or interfering in other countries' internal conflicts (Korea and Vietnam). There's also the War Between the States, in which the US forcibly reintegrated states that had seceded, as was arguably their right. Some people became freer as a result of that war (though perhaps an unintended result), others less free, and many just became dead. So it doesn't appear to me, at least, that conscription has ever been necessary to defend freedom.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

85% votes no. Finland has a mandatory military service, or a civil service if wanted.

Well, still 5 years to go.

 

[Imcalfin]

I didn't vote because we have compulsory military service for males here in Finland as it is.

Should we have one is a question I'm somewhat ambivalent about. I doubt we can kick an army up in time should our eastern neighbour decide to become belligerent. Which makes having a professional army for purposes outside of peacekeeping missions and border safety more or less useless. If credible defense is desired, I think we should keep the conscript army. If not, be done with it.

I didn't find my service particularly stressful or abusive. Some of my friends did. It really depends on both the sort of person one is and on where one serves. I did my time (285 days) in a small military police unit (16 men, the garrison as a whole had about 150 conscripts) in the middle of nowhere. Most of my time was spent walking in the woods admiring or cursing the local nature. Serving as an infantry grunt in a garrison of 1000+ men is an altogether different experience. Those of my friends that served in positions that had at least some autonomy were usually far happier with their experience than those that had the "Shut up and do as you are told, exactly as you are told!" experience.

I don't think I learned all that much about respect or authority, unless subverting them counts. I did learn a fair bit about how to get along with people I wouldn't associate with if I didn't have to. Which has proved to be a useful skill, there are plenty of lackwitted morons outside of military and sometimes you have to get along with them. Bringing together people from diverse backgrounds even if for a relatively short time is one the things I do consider truly good about compulsory military service. But real or perceived social good isn't enough of a justification for a compulsory military service. Whether it is needed or not should be decided on the grounds of whether it is needed to defend the integrity, and I don't mean this in any spiritual sense, of the country or not.

I do remember getting a lot more worked up about the whole thing back when I was staring at the same damn ammo depot doors that had been locked for the last decade or so. So perhaps I'm biased because the question doesn't touch me personally any more.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ideally a system like they have in Israel, where everyone is required to serve, would be best, but it just would never happen in the US.

 

[Atlas14]

America has only fought two wars in which its freedom was at stake: the Revolution and the War of 1812 (and I'm not so sure about that one). In neither case was conscription used, and it proved unnecessary--we won both wars. For that matter, no draft was needed in the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War, and our freedom wasn't even remotely threatened in either of those wars.

The only American wars in which the draft was used were wars in which we were defending other countries (the two World Wars) or interfering in other countries' internal conflicts (Korea and Vietnam). There's also the War Between the States, in which the US forcibly reintegrated states that had seceded, as was arguably their right. Some people became freer as a result of that war (though perhaps an unintended result), others less free, and many just became dead. So it doesn't appear to me, at least, that conscription has ever been necessary to defend freedom.

So are you saying our nation's freedom will never be at stake to such a degree as to legitimize conscription?

 

[Norton II]

So are you saying our nation's freedom will never be at stake to such a degree as to legitimize conscription?

If America's freedom were at stake, how necessary do you think conscription would be? Do you really think there'd be a shortage of volunteers in that case? More to the point, can conscription, as a form of involuntary servitude, ever be legitimate in the first place, no matter what the supposed necessity of it?

BTW, I see that you haven't voted on mandatory military service; how do you come down on that particular question?

 

[TheDuckLover]

NO!
I don't want to go to war.

 

[Bill3000]

So are you saying our nation's freedom will never be at stake to such a degree as to legitimize conscription?

Not unless Canada becomes some sort of communist superpower some time soon.

 

[sysyphus]

We're working on it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Paramilitary service. I've come to realise that the U.S. can't maintain a full conscription force with the measure of combined arms that it currently enjoys. So we should have conscription for Paramilitary service.

 

[Atlas14]

If America's freedom were at stake, how necessary do you think conscription would be? Do you really think there'd be a shortage of volunteers in that case? More to the point, can conscription, as a form of involuntary servitude, ever be legitimate in the first place, no matter what the supposed necessity of it?

Thats actually a very good point (the second one in particular).

I agree, there probably would be an excess of volunteers, but this is only an assumption.

BTW, I see that you haven't voted on mandatory military service; how do you come down on that particular question?

Traditionally I have been a fanatic pro-conscription kind of guy, but I am always willing to keep my mind open to better viewpoints. Yours happens to be one of them.

I don't like to vote on things when I am in the process of debate, because my vote will likely change.

Not unless Canada becomes some sort of communist superpower some time soon.

It could happen

 

[GinandTonic]

Militarily and moraly no, but ever since I turned 30 last year I've had this desire to wave a walking stick at the godless yoot and demand the return of military service. Perhaps wearing a cloth cap.

I havnt been able to express this as the local yoot have been all too well behaved. I told a bunch of them to stop beating on some kiddie the other day and they all skulked off...

Now in my day we had propper hoodlums

 

[Grisu]

Ideally a system like they have in Israel, where everyone is required to serve, would be best, but it just would never happen in the US.

While I can see that Israel's system certainly is better than that of most other countries that employ conscription (fairer in any case), I still don't see why any conscription system can be considered ideal? I just don't see the point of it, and think it's unnecessary limitation of people's right (or men's rights, in most countries :/)

 

[CaptainF]

The only American wars in which the draft was used were wars in which we were defending other countries (the two World Wars)

To be fair, WWII involved our security as well. WWI maybe too, considering our ships were attacked.

 

[Lotus49]

The worst thing a military can have is people that don't want to be in it. I say avoid conscription unless absolutely necessary (and after all other reasonable recruiting incentives have been exhausted, yet still without meeting the manpower requirements).

But, it depends on the country... little Finland, right next to Russia... probably not a bad idea to have all males loosely associated with the military. But for a larger, more populous country, we don't need no stinkin' conscripts. The days of needing 'bullet sponges' en masse (e.g. Russian conscripts in WWII) are long over, with our modern military.