Sign in to follow this  
smzimbabwe

Mandatory Military Service

Recommended Posts

walkerws    170
18 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

It depends. If draftees were limited to administrative, supply, cooking, etc., type jobs it could work. Where you would un into trouble is using draftees as combat soldiers. Everything I've heard on the matter says that draftees generally are not good for combat situations. 

 

 

If anyone was drafted, there's no real process that would do that. With experience as an MP Officer and a Logistics officer, you'd want conscripted people in the ground spots because of discipline. People in the rear areas have a lot more opportunity to screw up things than they do up front. I have mixed feelings on this, but there are some government positions (Secretary of Defense, Service Secretaries) that I think military service is a requirement. B.R.A.Ts might get a pass, but if I'm going into a situation, my Service Secretary should've been in my shoes as well. It helps to have a leader with that exposure in the room. 

 

That said, some sort of program that exposes our next generation to civil service and possibly exposure to other parts of the country would be something worthwhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MJWalker45    985
37 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Anyone who "rolls their eyes" over you (or anyone else) being a member of the service can :censored: right off. 

Thanks! Sometimes my "experience " can come off as condescending and some folks still believe we're all knuckle draggers. No one here though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dont care    1,442
1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

It depends. If draftees were limited to administrative, supply, cooking, etc., type jobs it could work. Where you would un into trouble is using draftees as combat soldiers. Everything I've heard on the matter says that draftees generally are not good for combat situations. 

But even then they need to be trained in basic infantry tasks first before going on to specialized training. Everyone does and it's especially needed now because of the non linear battlefield we currently are fighting make it so everyone has to be ready for combat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Korean-American. South Korea requires every male to serve around two years (20-24 months). Because I have an American citizenship, I (obviously) don't have to serve, but a lot of my friends who only have a Korean citizenship have to serve at some point. All of my friends see military service as a waste of time, as they are usually subjected to office work and they are forced to take two years out of their lives to do something they don't want to do. Of course Korea is is smaller and is still technically at war, and is probably necessary, but it does cause a lot of males to start searching out other options. In a country the size of the US, I would definitely say mandatory military service would not go over well. Our army is big enough as is and it would only divide the country further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBubba    721
8 hours ago, DG_Now said:

You can provide service to your country and your country's reputation without learning about bombs and guns and things.

 

I wasn't mocking your post. I was just reminded of an amusing quote by William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada's Prime Minister during the Second World War, in reference to his conscription policy.

 

 

Side note, but doing some more research now it seems as though I've always misinterpreted what King was saying. I always thought he was referring to the National Resources Mobilization Act (1940), which essentially required men to serve in the armed forces in some capacity but did not require them to go overseas (a fair enough compromise between the need to support the war effort and the need to avoid the national unity crisis that would be triggered by forcing the predominantly anti-war, pro-King Québécois to fight in Europe). It turns out he said that in 1942 during the lead-up to a national plebiscite on the issue of moving towards "true" conscription. From what I gather, King was essentially saying that a "yes" victory would allow the government to enact conscription but, at the time, there was no guarantee that they would eventually have to do so.

Edited by BigBubba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try to keep as much of the politics out of this but feel free to remove any posts you deem too political for the discussion.

 

I have never been a huge fan of the draft, unless it's in dire, emergency situations. I kinda think everyone has articulated pretty much why I don't care for it. No need to restate what has been said. 

 

I don't think conscription should be mandatory in general, however I wouldn't be opposed to making it a requirement to own a gun or get a gun license. In the event of a national draft, people in the national gun owner registry get selected first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ElwoodCuse    89

Not even the U.S. Military wants any kind of mandatory service anymore, because 1. it's bad PR and 2. it brings in people who don't want to be there.

 

I'm not sure why we still maintain the Selective Service. If it ever got to the point that we were conscripting 18 to 29 year old males, the world would basically be ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_Cap    7,595
11 hours ago, BigBubba said:

 

I wasn't mocking your post. I was just reminded of an amusing quote by William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada's Prime Minister during the Second World War, in reference to his conscription policy.

 

 

Side note, but doing some more research now it seems as though I've always misinterpreted what King was saying. I always thought he was referring to the National Resources Mobilization Act (1940), which essentially required men to serve in the armed forces in some capacity but did not require them to go overseas (a fair enough compromise between the need to support the war effort and the need to avoid the national unity crisis that would be triggered by forcing the predominantly anti-war, pro-King Québécois to fight in Europe). It turns out he said that in 1942 during the lead-up to a national plebiscite on the issue of moving towards "true" conscription. From what I gather, King was essentially saying that a "yes" victory would allow the government to enact conscription but, at the time, there was no guarantee that they would eventually have to do so.

King was the perfect personification of political doubletalk made manifest :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
walkerws    170
15 hours ago, dont care said:

But even then they need to be trained in basic infantry tasks first before going on to specialized training. Everyone does and it's especially needed now because of the non linear battlefield we currently are fighting make it so everyone has to be ready for combat

 

Unless they're at Ranger School, Infantry personnel complete their basic skills training in 20 weeks. The non-linear training would be done at home station or at a regional training center over less than a month. It's not ideal, but honestly the decision makers (Officers & NCOs) are going to be the major focus of specialized training and area immersion. There's pluses and minuses both ways but training focus would get rid of unnecessary things that those conscripts would need to receive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2001mark    1,187

I really don't know much about anything of all this, maybe because I was born afterwords &/or I'm Canadian...

 

yet hasn't the world evolved beyond mass human military needs?  I know plenty of ppl are required for military upkeep, & yet wars & battles don't seem to really require ppl on the ground in as many numbers yes?  For large countries like the US I should say; places like Israel seem destined to have mandatory service with a smaller pool of potentials.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See Red    752

Mandatory military isn't practical but I would be for some kind of civil service requirement. I worked on aircraft in the Air Force and it was two months for basic, another  four or five months of technical training (which was 95% classroom learning) and then another year (at least) of on the job training to be proficient. By the time you're capable of doing that particular job, your time would be about up. . Military service comes up a lot with the free college debate and really, not everybody can serve in the military and certainly not everybody should. I can't speak for any job but my old one but there's already too many guys that aren't cut out for military service serving, in my opinion. I can't see how mandatory service wouldn't make matters worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjackson3    98

Becoming a Marine was one of the proudest moments of my life.  I had the opportunity to see the World, interact with people from different backgrounds, serve my country, and use that experience to make myself better.  However, that was my choice. I'd do it all over again. But I am and always will be against mandatory service. We all volunteered but even in a group of people who made that choice, a handful will be "problem children".  If young people are forced into service, that number will only grow.  My military service was very rewarding and I am glad I made the decision to join.  But it was my decision.  I would rather it remain a choice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Needschat    125

ALL of the members of my in-laws and my family who served in the service did so AS VOLUNTEERS, and that includes my father-in-law and his brother during WWII, my grandfather in WWII, my paternal uncle in Korea (as an Akwesasne Code Talker), several of wife's cousins, and our nephew ( Based at Coronado).  

 

I tried to enlist after becoming disgruntled with college, but was rejected due to poor eyesight.  It was MY choice to join, or at least try to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosmic    2,504
3 hours ago, 2001mark said:

yet hasn't the world evolved beyond mass human military needs?

Many people thought the same thing before WWI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this