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

[Bast]

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.

What do you guys think?

 

[Godwynn]

No. We are not here to serve the state.

 

[MjM]

Yes, it adds much needed skills to the public.

 

[Winner]

No. We are not here to serve the state.

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

 

[Fifty]

Yes. Except screw that 1,2, or 5 year crap. I advocate compulsory lifetime service!

 

[Kozmos]

No the basic procedure for conscription is annoying to hell. Eight mother***** hours in the military hospital doing every kind of mental/physical test that exists. I mean scans, blood testing, psychological tests......blaaaargh! And for what, so I can get the priceless experience of peeling potatoes? Sorry got that already.

Armies should be professional.

 

[Winner]

Anyway, no.

My country has abolished the mandatory military service few years ago and as far as I know, there are no plans to renew it.

It makes no sense for our country anyway, we're not directly threatened (all countries around us are either NATO or EU allies (or both). We need to send our troops to peacekeeping missions abroad and for this, we need well-trained, well-equiped small force of professionals. That's why we are trying to reform our armed forces.

 

[Disgustipated]

no.

Only the best for the job. Military types are unmotivated enough as it is (I was in the navy), having a bunch of people who don't want to be there will make it worse.

it's best to keep the military as professional as possible.

 

[Disgustipated]

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.

What do you guys think?

While I think kids do need more discipline, they should get this in school. Here's an idea, force everyone to go to military schools. . Right now, schools are undisciplined. We've gone soft.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I don't trust my government enough right now to give em' that.

 

[Till]

No.

Military service is almost entirely unproductive. Society is better served by having the young people enter the job market faster/ begin their studies earlier.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i'd move to canada.

 

[GenMarshall]

No No No NO!

The US should not have a mandatory military service!

 

[Grisu]

my country does have it, but shouldn't IMHO.

it did teach me a different perspective, though propably not in the way you imagined. what it taught me was contempt for blind obedience, and a dislike for authority

furthermore I believe that me serving in the army has benefited my country exactly zilch, instead costing the taxpayer a lot of money.

Yes, it adds much needed skills to the public.

yeah right, much needed skills, and what would those be? I can't think of a single skill that benefited me or my country that I acquired during my army time. Well, except that dirty boots lose wars

 

[Nobody]

No, not unless there is a major war and new zealand (or australia) is under danger

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

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.

What do you guys think?

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).

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

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

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.

 

[covok48]

No. Conscripts make crap soldiers during wartime, and that's where there'd be the most motivation to serve. I can't imagine what motivation (and thus preformance) manditory service would be for peacetime.

 

[Steph]

No. We had it in France, and it has been suspended.
You don't really learn how to defend your country. You will not be as efficient as professional soldiers.
You are paid very little, and can't support your familly or contribute to the economy while you are there.
For some people with long studies, it can be a real hindrance.

I think we should have something short (2-4 weeks), something you could do during summer hollydays, to teach to everyone (male and female) a minimum of discipline, and use the opportunity to teach some basics civil rights and duties.

Then, why not a longer service time, but :
a) In relation with your future job / studies
b) With a better pay.

That would make sense, but we can't afford it.

 

[Evie]

Teaching all of a generation to obey orders and do what their superior tells them does not seems to me a good way to defend such little things as democracy,. Not that soldiers necessarily becomes drone (obviously), but we need strong-willed independant thinkers, and the army has a habit of trying very hard to break those.

Sorry, but army training has no place in the life of the crushing majority of people, and, barring a major crisis, this is as it should be.