Poll: Compulsory Military Service

[DEAD34345]

I've chosen "Nope", but the poll isn't all that clear. I mean, if a country was stuck in a defensive war against another country that wanted to completely kill its entire populace for some reason, then mandatory conscription would make perfect sense. In less extreme examples though, I'd pretty much always say no.

Actually the whole idea seems barbaric to me. People have some basic rights that should generally be upheld when possible, and the right to not be enslaved and used to murder other people must be pretty high on that list. Even non military compulsory service I disagree with, specifically the "compulsory" part. People shouldn't be forced into doing anything when it's not absolutely necessary.

 

[Vareoth]

Ha, nope. I flat out refuse to be treated as property by my government in such an obvious way. I'd rather go to prison for dodging. Besides, I hate violence and am a massive coward so I doubt I'd be any good in a fight. And conscription armies aren't really all that "competitive" anyway so I doubt that a country would want one if they weren't in a desperate situation. I don't think that with the modern mentality and focus on individualism such a system is feasible anymore. And I haven't even touched all the mortality issues that will arise and the basic rights of the individual human being.

Sorry if I seem a bit hostile but something about this idea completely rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Nope, do not support compulsory military service in any form whatsoever.

 

[Vault101]

NO

the idea of some kind of comunity service sure...

but the military is essentially a nessicary evil and we should not be forced to participate

now unless there was actually a good reason...like aliens invaded then sure...but I don't need them telling me whats good for me ESPECIALLY in the context of "youth" and "learning respect" and shit...they can fuck right off, no one shoudl be told their bad people for existing

 

[SoranMBane]

Unless that person committed a crime, it will always be morally wrong for a government to force someone to do anything against their will. Military service especially, since that would involve potentially forcing someone to fight, or even die, for a country or cause that they may not even believe in. The only time where I can see conscription being even slightly understandable is for a desperate nation with many enemies, but even then, a necessary evil is still evil.

Besides the fact that conscription is a gross human rights violation, it's also impractical most of the time since, as other people have already pointed out, conscripted forces are of much lower quality than volunteer forces. A small army of volunteers would be more effective than a large army of people who don't want to be there.

 

[Slycne]

Just to point out, since a few people have brought it up, but only about 10-15% of any military service is "soldiers" or persons in combat related roles. Just because you have conscription or mandatory service doesn't mean you're shoving a bunch of folks into trenches with rifles per say.

 

[Frission]

The only modern nation that I know of which has compulsory military service is South Korea. They aren't doing too badly and it's understandable due to the precarious position they are in.

Personally however my feelings can be summed up with following song:

<youtube=f0fxfog_ShY>

It's extreme, but I really don't want to serve in the military. Then again I haven't ever been in the military, but frankly I just won't mix well in the military.

EDIT: In peacetime sure, mandatory service is good for discipline, but in wartime it's a different story. I guess it's also because the local military have sent badly trained men and even boys to their deaths with barely any training. Otherwise they were executed.

Things like that sort of seep into the the social attitude towards the military.

 

[Llil]

Finland has compulsory national service for men. You can either do it in the military or as civilian service (or you could go to jail). I'm not a huge fan, but I don't really feel strongly against it either.

Before I did my military service I was very much against it, but when I actually got there, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I expected. And in hindsight, it was a good experience, even though there were times I was not enjoying myself at all. There are some people who have trouble working with others and especially with doing what they're told. For those people, the military service really does some good. It does feel a little strange that in the modern world where we are supposed to be all about equality, something like military service is only required from one sex.

I have to say, though, the time I was in the military was the easiest and most carefree time of my life since early childhood. I got to eat well three times a day, had a place to sleep and clean clothes, all for free. And I didn't have to worry about anything. Just do what I was told and everything was fine.

 

BTW, like Slycne pointed out, not every conscript is going to be in a combat role. I was a bookkeeper/clerk for example.

 

[Auberon]

"Military service" translates mostly to doing relevant drills and slacking off rest of the time with occasional camp, though it's few hours in the evening. Over here right now, anyway.

Unless someone has third degree education or job, the service does rarely anything negative. Even then, it can be delayed until those studies are finished - it's just awkward when they're in their mid-late 20s and NCOs are around 20 themselves. Or the other way around, finish the gig and go back to civilian life.

Civil service is always an option, and there are worse ways to spend 6-12 months of one's life.

E: As told by my countryman in above post.

 

[TheSYLOH]

I say yes.
To those people who claim government tyranny:
Which populace is going to be easier to control, one where only government volunteers and nut-job survivalist have proper military training, or one where everyone knows how to shoot a rifle and work as a unit.

To those people who want peace:
Which country is more likely to go to war, one where the fortunate sons of leaders get to stay safe or one where everyone rich/poor powerful/powerless has an equal chance of heading to the frontline.

To those who think the military brainwashes:
I served two years of National Service. My opinion of the government as a whole and the military in particular has only gone down. There's nothing that diminishes the mystique of "The Man" as briefly becoming "The Man". You see first hand military incompetence and realize that many of those folks are only there because no other business sector would take them.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

No. Purely because I believe the individual has a right to their own life and being - through no choice of their own - born into this system should not give the govt. the right to violate this.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, I really don't see how it does much good to have people in the military who don't want to be there. I serve in the US military and know more then enough people who volunteered to be there who really didn't need to be there.

However, I could also see it being a valuable deterrent to invasion. Have a small, professional standing army(National Guard) that can respond immediately to an emergency/invasion and if things get worse, begin conscription. Since everyone has had some military training, it's merely a matter of refreshing them on what they need to know to fight effectively. They(presumably) already know how to use a gun and basic combat skills, so you're not wasting as much time waiting for them to finish boot camp.

Not to mention some of the people doing compulsory service might decide they want to do it for a career(thus comprising the small, professional core mentioned before).

On a related note, I'm starting to think it should be mandatory for those seeking public office to do some kind of mandatory public service, either civil or military, so they have some idea what it's like to actually be those guys on doing the dirty jobs on the ground. It's probably a lot harder to vote to invade middleeastern-stan when you've had to crawl through the mud for a couple weeks while being shot at.

 

[Fox12]

Damn, I have mixed feelings.

A population that is trained and armed is harder to control. The government can't coerce the people as easily if they all have guns, and they all know how to use them. If said population were to rise up, then they would be much more capable of conducting a war against their oppressors.

On the other hand, I dislike coercion of any kind. Especially from the government. What if someone doesn't support the war they're being forced to fight? Does the state have the right to force its people to kill and possibly die? Doesn't the state usually justify its own existence by claiming it's supposed to look after the welfare of its people? And is it just for a bunch of old white men, many of whom have not seen combat, to force young men to go and die for them? Furthermore, conscripts are typically less dependable than volunteers. There's a greater chance of a breakdown in discipline when you send unmotivated, poorly trained soldiers with no morale to fight in another country. War crimes in Vietnam were more likely to involve draftees than men who joined willingly. It also tends to hurt public morale and support for the war, at least in our modern world. This isn't WW2 anymore.

 

[HalfTangible]

Making it mandatory is what drives this question straight into 'nope' for me. Governments don't handle compulsory action very well.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Take a quick look at Vietnam, and ask the question again. The answer should be obvious: no. Forcing people into the army makes for some very undisciplined soldiers who do not want any part of it. That creates a lot of messy scenarios, which are inexcusable for such a profession. The only time I could imagine it being justified is if a tyrannical superpower had invaded with the intent of genocide. At that point, everyone has to fight for their lives. Other than very extreme cases like that, I'm soundly against the idea.

 

[lacktheknack]

Get three people in one room and you'd have four opinions.

Stealing this line forever.

OT: I'm gonna go with "no", entirely because I'm athsmatic to the max and compulsory boot camp would kill me.

I have no issue with the idea, because the military really does work wonders on lots of aspects of your life (self-control, co-operation, stamina, etc), but mandatory bouts in the infantry (the standard) just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe if they drafted in techies and bureaucrats-in-training I'd be more open to it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Take a quick look at Vietnam, and ask the question again. The answer should be obvious: no. Forcing people into the army makes for some very undisciplined soldiers who do not want any part of it. That creates a lot of messy scenarios, which are inexcusable for such a profession. The only time I could imagine it being justified is if a tyrannical superpower had invaded with the intent of genocide. At that point, everyone has to fight for their lives. Other than very extreme cases like that, I'm soundly against the idea.

To be fair, sudden conscription is the thing that results in a massive influx of soldiers, which leads to undisciplined and angry soldiers (due to the sheer mass of training that has to be done).

A compulsory-at-a-certain-age conscription, however, would stem the flow of recruits and make them easier to train and discipline.

I'm not saying that your general stance is flawed, though.

 

[loc978]

Take a quick look at Vietnam, and ask the question again. The answer should be obvious: no. Forcing people into the army makes for some very undisciplined soldiers who do not want any part of it. That creates a lot of messy scenarios, which are inexcusable for such a profession. The only time I could imagine it being justified is if a tyrannical superpower had invaded with the intent of genocide. At that point, everyone has to fight for their lives. Other than very extreme cases like that, I'm soundly against the idea.

Actually, Vietnam was the draft working as intended... to a point. A war without the support of the people is supposed to end quickly with our retreat. The system was set up to keep the people vigilant against political stupidity starting unnecessary wars. End the draft, and we wind up with our professional military at the command of unsupported political maneuvering... I know, I was there [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghuiyzYu5_o]. Vietnam shouldn't have ended the draft, it should have simply demonized the politicians who kicked it off. I'd say the founding fathers had too much faith in us.

All ending the draft did was change the sentiment of the rich from "I'd best make sure my kid doesn't have to go before I start this" to "Fuck it, send in the poor."

 

[lunavixen]

Pfft... we don't need compulsory service for the people, we can just turn the local wildlife on them, that'll take care of any intruders

On a serious note, most countries don't need to have compulsory service, and I don't think that forcing military service on people who don't want to or can't do the work will not end well. I can understand the practical applications in some countries like Iran, which are often in conflict for some reason or another or in smaller countries with a lower total population (i.e. not enough to make up a military force based on volunteers alone), but in most Western countries where the militaries can have a decent military size (and a military reserve) based on those who chose that career path, it makes little sense to force everyone to do it.

 

[Majinash]

I voted yes because the question was "can compulsory service be good" not "will" it be good.

I'm going to do something I normally hate and bring fiction into this, but anyone who has read Startship Troopers may understand where I'm coming from. While that book didn't have true "compulsory" service, it was pretty similar and a good example of how it could be benificial to people.

If you havn't read the book and only seen the movie, try to remember the "Difference between a civilian and a citizen" part and understand you had an entire book exploring that idea.

the idea that I have some kind of duty to give my life to a state because I was born within its borders is fucking stupid

I think this is a bit unfair of a statement. Sure depending on your goverment it could look a lot like this (you used to fight for your king, not other peasants), but in any representivie goverment you arn't giving your life to the state, you are doing it for the people, yourself, your loved ones and everyone else.