Pick Your Poison. Conscription or Mandatory Military Service.

[SlowwHand]

And that would be fine. You could do that in mandatory service. Less chance during conscription when the service puts you strictly where you're needed the most.

[Pekka]

Mandatory of course. It's great, it gives everyone the opportunity to enjoy being in army.

[rah]

There are many support positions that don't require you to shoot anybody. And I'd be willing to include 'Peace Corps' type activities as an alternative.

I'm all for mandatory service (no longer than two years) Suplemented by career volunteers for continueity.

Whether it should infer citizen type privileges is more iffy. Maybe for some of the more advanced privileges like running for office or holding a government job, but not for simple voting, land owning, or welfare.

My goal from all this isn't the defense of the country (even though it's a nice side benefit).

But to help educate people on the equality of man. Most bigotry and bias comes from ignorance. If rich and poor were obligated to serve side by side, (any stratisfication would defeat the purpose) and see the value of their fellow man regardless of race, color, sex, religion, I think the country would be a better place to live in the long run. Granted it wouldn't solve the entire problem over night, but it could be a great step in the right direction.

It would also reinforce a positive identity, (from contributing to the betterment of your country or others). A lot of people are in sore need of that.

And finally it would force the rich snots to actually do something without it being done for them. A valuable experience. And any friendships developed would carry back into life afterwards. All men would then share a common experience that could be drawn upon to make them feel more equal.

RAH
Yes quite Ivory tower, but I think SOME of my stated goals would be accomplished through this type of thing.
So be nice.

[GePap]

Conscription: it is far cheaper, and creates just what it is meant to create: a huge pool of cannon fodder when the regular army get in trouble or needs simply to throw bodies at the problem.

[David Floyd]

Neither, of course. Most are an absolute moral abomination.

[MikeH]

Morals are for people who don't plan to take advantage of others. (c) Venom

[David Floyd]

By that, can I infer you agree that by conscription/mandatory service, the government is taking advantage of its position of strength and using a might makes right approach?

[Dr. Nick]

They're both the same thing you know. No matter how you try and paint it, they are.

And the way you try and paint them makes them incomparable.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ming
The Oxford Dictionary...

Conscription: a summons for compulsory (esp. military) duty.



And he wonders why we didn't understand what he was thinking instead of what he posted...

I must admit, I'm told this frequently; I must also admit the validity of your point.
Sometimes, many times, I'll either take up with a conversation going on strictly in my head, or resume an hour's, maybe day's, old conversation.
My ex has told me. My daughter has told me. My mother.

Guilty, as charged.


But David, you post toastie, "neither" is not a choice.
In the entire history of the United States, not one war has taken place without conscription.
I would hazard the guess that nearly every country could say the same.
Your answer is limited to one or the other, an "abomination" to you or not.

I'll tell you straight up, if you pick Conscription you're making a mistake. Guaranteed.

[chequita guevara]

I think he means the lottery system for conscription, wherein some people are drafted and others aren't, rather than in systmes where everyone gets drafted.

I choose the second choice, for the same reasons as Rah. Also, draft boards are notorioulsy corruptable, with the disenfranchised being more likely to get drafted while the scions of the elite get passed over. (One Black scholar had to move to England after his draft board discovered he was Black and no longer exempted him from service while he was at college. He spent more than 40 years in Britain before finally being pardoned.)

I also think a military composed of the whole of a generation is less likely to be usable against the American people. I don't trust mercenary armies, like we have now.

[Buck Birdseed]

Of course, the problem with Military Service is that there are simply not enough positions in the army to fill in peacetime. Sweden by no means has very low military spending by European standards (Small population, big area, dangerous nearby enemy, relatively strategic location), and only men are drafted, but still upwards of 70% are exempted (I was). Basically only the fittest and the volounteers who are not complete nutcases or Nazis do the service.

Which is a problem, because when the majority of people in the military are people who are excessively pro-military, the mix gets skewered and the wavering are even less likely to try to get in. Right now the minority who does do the military service tends to be excessively Macho/nasty/racist/violent brawlers, people too thick-headed to skive off* and right-wing nutters, which is not a good thing for the country. I suppose they're balanced out okay by the good dutiful social democrats, but if we add women into the mix which we're wont to do in the future that contingent will grow even smaller.

*Evidence as to why the system fails: my friend, let's call him Richard. Top-level amateur footballer, regular substitute in the swedish second division, runs the half-marathon in less than an hour. Goes in, fails the written test on purpose. Is asked to "estimate how well he can run because the equipment is switched off for maintenance". Claims he's really ****. Same with how much he can lift. Goes in to the pre-doctor nurse appointment, claims he's got a back injury which isn't checked, claims he's got a foot problem, is let go without having to see the supposedly compulsory doctor or the equally "compulsory" psychiatrist. Goes home, never checked, never stopped.

[Shi Huangdi]

"In the entire history of the United States, not one war has taken place without conscription. "

The Gulf War? The Afghanistan war?

MtG made a great post awhile back detailing we probably wouldn't need conscripts anymore. We are headed towards smaller, more elite, more technological militaries nowadays. The amount the government pays per soldier has gone up and up, and from the limited amount I have read that amount will continue to rise. That will of course push the amount of soldier you have down. The United State already maintains a million men in our military without conscription, I doubt it will ever be needed again.

[Az]

Mandatory military service is better, because then, when you need to conscript, your conscripts aren't green, at all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
By that, can I infer you agree that by conscription/mandatory service, the government is taking advantage of its position of strength and using a might makes right approach?

If you don't like it, you can always leave. I hear the "government" in places like Somalia and Sierra Leone pretty much leaves you alone.


As for Sloww's question, neither, because they're irrelevant in a technologically advanced military. Firepower is no longer related to mass, it's related to the ability to operate technology. That requires personnel retention beyond any three-year or so conscription period, and it requires certain minimum aptitudes and learning abilities, so quality of recruit is more important than quantity.

The US has neither the manufacturing capacity to outfit, the economic capacity to fund, or the logistical capacity to deploy a military force sized around the likely pool of conscripts or mandatory service, with anything close to current levels of training and equipment.

Carrying a large mass of combat ineffective troops is something the Soviets and Iraqis are well known for, it's not something we should emulate.

[Chris 62]

I support mandatory service, with the provision it ONLY applies to Floyd.