Universal Conscription / National Service

[btownmeggy]

Now, this may surprise anyone who's engaged me in politically-oriented discussions before, but I think this is a great idea!

I don't really see anything unethical, immoral, undemocratic, abusive of civil rights, or wrong with requiring national service of young people. In fact, I think it might be a very good addition to compulsory education!

However, I don't think that you should have to demonstrate ethical or religious aversion to serving in the military in order to be placed in a sort of service other than the military. In my ideal system, you could join the military if that was your preference (like, if it was part of a career you planned on going into, or if you really like guns or world travel). Otherwise, it would be assumed that you DIDN'T want to go into the military and you would be assigned to one of a variety of fields of service (domestically or internationally) according to your interests, skills, and aptitudes.

I DO have my doubts, though. I'm not sure how long it should be though. Six months? A year? Also, would everyone who wanted to go to college (university) have to take a gap year? What about people who are already in college at age 18? What would be the results of refusal to join up? What about people who already have children to take care of? There are certainly kinks to sort out.

[vtmarik]

Well, since compulsory education is a bad idea on its own, I hardly think that pushing kids towards national service is going to do anything other than make them more resentful over the lack of control in their lives.

[MR. Nate]

Well, with the college deals the army currently offers for vets, it might actually help more kids get into college, if it was expanded.

And if everyone has a year of military training behind them, you could probably cut a few classes, and you'd get more people graduating faster (because their more disciplined) so the trade off might not be that significant.

[vtmarik]

Well, with the college deals the army currently offers for vets, it might actually help more kids get into college, if it was expanded.

And if everyone has a year of military training behind them, you could probably cut a few classes, and you'd get more people graduating faster (because their more disciplined) so the trade off might not be that significant.

It's possible, but if we're talking about middle/high school age kids, it's just gonna make them resentful.

Trust me, I was pretty damn resentful of the school system during that time. I'd hate to think of a program like this, because it would have made me resentful of the US.

[raith]

Now, this may surprise anyone who's engaged me in politically-oriented discussions before, but I think this is a great idea!

I don't really see anything unethical, immoral, undemocratic, abusive of civil rights, or wrong with requiring national service of young people. In fact, I think it might be a very good addition to compulsory education!

However, I don't think that you should have to demonstrate ethical or religious aversion to serving in the military in order to be placed in a sort of service other than the military. In my ideal system, you could join the military if that was your preference (like, if it was part of a career you planned on going into, or if you really like guns or world travel). Otherwise, it would be assumed that you DIDN'T want to go into the military and you would be assigned to one of a variety of fields of service (domestically or internationally) according to your interests, skills, and aptitudes.

I DO have my doubts, though. I'm not sure how long it should be though. Six months? A year? Also, would everyone who wanted to go to college (university) have to take a gap year? What about people who are already in college at age 18? What would be the results of refusal to join up? What about people who already have children to take care of? There are certainly kinks to sort out.

I agree that it should be a free choice (obviously with some limitations. If 42 million people want to join the Hawaii Beach Patrol there are gonna be some dissappointed people) between the military and the non military.

I also agree that there would be a lot of kinks to work out. How long? I would say it would have to be at least a year or more, but I think that there could also be an option similar to the current reserve set up of two weeks a year and one weekend a month over a certain period of time (it would have to be longer than doing the full obligation at once) This option could work for a lot to people who might not otherwise be able to do the full obligation at one time. ie- students, single parent families, etc. Also there could be deferral situations as well ie- someone defers through medical or las school and does there obligation at the back end in a free clinic or as a public defender. Im sure that if it became institutionalized then institutions such as colleges would adapt to it. I think most exceptions that are used to get out of military service (health or disability) would become non issues. If there are plenty of non-military options a place should be able to be found for just about everyone.

As far as penelties for not fulfilling your obligation... I dont know. its a tough one. Just a fine would make it a system that still disproportionalty burdened the middle and lower classes. Jail time? may be too harsh? loss of certain citizen priviledges such as the right to vote? Too vulnerable to civil liberties abuse. ... I dont know. A good balance would have to be found. I think that the legal penalties would be more important in the beginning and hopefully as the institution became more ingrained most people would be willing to do it ought of a feeling of duty or fear of shame.

I believe it is a good idea but like most good ideas the critical thing is the execution and implimentation of the idea. if those are messed up or screwed with the whole thing gets corrupted. ie- league of nations, U.N., and such. and some things that look like good ideas will never work because human nature is human nature ie- Communism, and such

[Balsiefen]

Definatly not, putting 80% of the population in military training is not a good move, forcing people into a career they dont want even for a year is wrong and i have no idea what the attraction for people is. Not all of us have messed up lives which need army training to sort out, not all of us wish to spend an otherwise profitable year, in a career we wont need and dont want. There are lots of things our nations need but an increaced military with 80% of people knowing how to handle a gun is definatly not one of them.

With the argument about the koreans and the japanese, frankly the japanese sound like nicer people, and out of korea and japan, which is the world economic leader?

frankly it would be an unpleasent and unhelpful experience for most people

[raith]

Definatly not, putting 80% of the population in military training is not a good move, forcing people into a career they dont want even for a year is wrong and i have no idea what the attraction for people is. Not all of us have messed up lives which need army training to sort out, not all of us wish to spend an otherwise profitable year, in a career we wont need and dont want. There are lots of things our nations need but an increaced military with 80% of people knowing how to handle a gun is definatly not one of them.

With the argument about the koreans and the japanese, frankly the japanese sound like nicer people, and out of korea and japan, which is the world economic leader?

frankly it would be an unpleasent and unhelpful experience for most people

do you think people owe any obligation to their respective country or do you think the taxes people pay should be it for any legal obligation and whatever other service that they choose to do (or not do) is purely a personal decision?

[Nobunaga]

With the argument about the koreans and the japanese, frankly the japanese sound like nicer people, and out of korea and japan, which is the world economic leader?

... Well, that has much, if not all, to do with post war investment by the US and European nations in the Japanese economy. But that said, I agree with you - military service is not for everybody... not in America, anyway.

...

[Balsiefen]

Definatly not, putting 80% of the population in military training is not a good move, forcing people into a career they dont want even for a year is wrong and i have no idea what the attraction for people is. Not all of us have messed up lives which need army training to sort out, not all of us wish to spend an otherwise profitable year, in a career we wont need and dont want. There are lots of things our nations need but an increaced military with 80% of people knowing how to handle a gun is definatly not one of them.

With the argument about the koreans and the japanese, frankly the japanese sound like nicer people, and out of korea and japan, which is the world economic leader?

frankly it would be an unpleasent and unhelpful experience for most people

do you think people owe any obligation to their respective country or do you think the taxes people pay should be it for any legal obligation and whatever other service that they choose to do (or not do) is purely a personal decision?

Gouvernments are the servants of people, people are not the servants of gouvernments. You are randomly born into a country, you had no choice and neither did the gouvernment which country it was so you should hold no obligation to a strip of land. Taxes are justly paid, by doing so you ensure your own helth, juslice, education and protection. if you wish to take a job in the army, you should do so. If you dont you shouldn't be forced

... Well, that has much, if not all, to do with post war investment by the US and European nations in the Japanese economy. But that said, I agree with you - military service is not for everybody... not in America, anyway.

Yes i agree with you there, what i ment was japan's tecnological explosion in terms of robotics ect

[Jenos Ridan]

What happened to the american tradition of service? and how could it be brought back?

A long, bloody war.

Don't worry. We might have one soon. I plan on being in college (been saving the money for a while) when it happens and going ROTC.

[Z00T]

maybe a little 'background' on 'conscription' would be helpful ...
(i use western european conscription as example, because others {russian if only to mention one} use(d) it in an 'expansionalist' way {which is completely off-topic here}).
each country needs a military force to protect it's borders, and thus needs people to 'make' that force, and specialy 'in the old days' professional soldiers were very expensive, so they used conscription to 'use' cheap forces.
but with the technological increase of the materials the training of those 'cheap' forces became more and more expensive. so the choice had been made (or better said 'forced to make') to decrease the number of conscription forces in favor of a 'smaller' but better equiped and trained force.
a little remark needs to be made here; in military language people talk of 'supporting forces' or 'intendance'. in a very global way of speaking this is about the number of persons supporting (technician, cook, administrative, driver, etc.) a 'fighting unit' (1 soldier). in the usa this ratio is roughly 5:1 (5 intendance supporting 1 soldier). this shows that the usa favors the soldier more than the material, he's better equiped and supported. in europe (france is a good example) this ratio is 1:5 !! as a result the 'european' soldier has to rely more 'on himself' than an american soldier (far from me to state either one is better, it's just a different way of 'management')
a little anecdote; in french guyana the french foreign legion has a unique training camp based on 'GROUP (!!!) survival training in tropical rain forest' {it's name is CEFE, centre d'entrainement en foret equatorial} (the notion 'group' is important, there exists a brazilian unit in manaus that trains individual survival, by far the most difficult training in the world, and if ever an anti-military person would see images of this training he would have a heart attack !!!), but back to the CEFE ... some 20 years ago a West Point (for non-military one of the usa officer training schools) unit thought they might have a go at it .... they stayed for 2 days, the commanding officer took out of his pocket a small gadget (because of the iron in the trees communication devices work very badly overthere), 'phoned' home, and 3 hours later two big chinook helicopters came to collect them, and no american unit has ever came back since ...
only few countries in europe still have conscription, mainly because of their 'geopolitical' environment they are in no need of a 'huge' military force. most other 'big' countries have stopped using conscription.
conclusion; because of the cost of training and maintaining a technologicaly highly developped combat force, conscription is just too expensive ....

[raith]

so you are saying basically that its not a good idea because it is not workable and is too expensive? Am I reading that right?

[Z00T]

exactly, that's why nearly all the european countries have gone to 'professional' armies.
and they have (nearly) all incorporated what they call 'short term' contracts from 3 to 5 years.
2 reasons for this;
first: it takes a couple of months to realy train a soldier and they want to keep that 'expertise' with them for a certain time (to 'sort of' recover the investment)
second: what costs very much to a nation, is the retired (and pensioned !!) soldiers (again an example, in the french army you can retire with a (small) pension after 15 years of service). so to avoid to have to pay pensions they keep people in service for less than the required time (again france; very often they offer people 3 short time contracts of 3 years, but not more, because there is an 'unwritten' rule that when somebody reaches 12 years of service, they have to renew his contract till 15 years {unless 'professional' disbehaviour or other 'very punishable' facts})

[Z00T]

for those interested, a rather good documentary about the french foreign legion (in english);
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-6777372516104300363

3 major and important remarks;
1> the sniper that shot at president degaulle was not a legionaire, he was from the OAS (organisation d'armee secret, a political-military organisation opposed to the french politic wish to grant Algeria {which was until then a french colony} it's independancy.
2> until 1962 the legion has never been stationed in metropolitan france, because of the original law when the legion was created stated they would always be stationed in french colonies, and never in france itself {actually the first time the legion set foot on french soil was during WW2}. it was in fact after algeria became independant that the legion was stationed in france for the first time in it's history.
3> it is (and always have been) impossible for somebody to leave the legion with a 'false' identity, you can stay under 'anonimat' until you leave if you wish to, but under no circumstances can you keep this identity after you have left the legion.

[raith]

Looks like this thread is dying out. Thanks for the opinions, comments, and history lessons.