Originally Posted by badjasonn

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives for mandatory service. Think of all the people that would find a renewed sense of confidence that they could accomplish something of this nature. An improved fitness level would also be a benefit. I believe pride in one's country would also improve.

That did show serious strains in the 60's however.

Is it worth degrading our military as it is by doing this again?

I believe that one would take more pride in their country if they voluntered rather than be forced. Unless it were absolutely necessary I'm against it.
My son has great pride in himself and our country. He also has changed drastically for the better. He's more fit than I've ever seen and more confindent in himself than any of his friends.
If you're waiting for your name to be drawn for a war you may be against, you never who you're going to get and what may happen. This is a different type of war.. I could be wrong, but I believe this generation's fight is more about religion than anything else (or so some believe) Using this to control and manipulate one's views on life in general has taken it's toll on all of us.

Originally Posted by badjasonn

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives for mandatory service. Think of all the people that would find a renewed sense of confidence that they could accomplish something of this nature. An improved fitness level would also be a benefit. I believe pride in one's country would also improve.

The military is not here for your or anyone else's self esteem. It is not going to magically make disciplined grateful citizens. People who were douchbags before will be douchbags after. Training effectiveness will be degraded because the trainers will have to spend 80% of their time on the ones who DON'T want to be there.

The military is here to fight and win our countries wars. It is the responsibility of the military that they have the most effective force possible, especially in the modern age where every single decision a soldier makes could end up on CNN and is constantly under scrutiny.

The days of simply shooting now and asking questions later are over. I think it would be a lot to ask of a conscript to NOT shoot 95% of the time. History has shown that a trained all volunteer force generally fairs much better in the crucible of combat than conscripted ones.

I suppose when they are killed they can feel good about themselves since they have a renewed sense of confidence.

Both World Wars the Armies were mainly Conscription ones, and the Regulars only made up a small total of the overall force. I myself was called up after WW2, not that wanted to be called up. Still wound up fighting in two separate conflicts and I was a good soldier, and as good as any Regular. Most of the conscripted soldiers were well educated and many of them better than the officers that led them, so how it can be said that Conscription dragged the army down or they were not as good as a Regular soldier is rubbish, and many of them died fighting for their country, well they did in the UK who have been fighting non stop from the end of WW2 and 1969 has been the only year that the British Army did not lose a man in Action and very few countries can say that.

Originally Posted by brinktk

The military is not here for your or anyone else's self esteem. It is not going to magically make disciplined grateful citizens. People who were douchbags before will be douchbags after. Training effectiveness will be degraded because the trainers will have to spend 80% of their time on the ones who DON'T want to be there.

The military is here to fight and win our countries wars. It is the responsibility of the military that they have the most effective force possible, especially in the modern age where every single decision a soldier makes could end up on CNN and is constantly under scrutiny.

The days of simply shooting now and asking questions later are over. I think it would be a lot to ask of a conscript to NOT shoot 95% of the time. History has shown that a trained all volunteer force generally fairs much better in the crucible of combat than conscripted ones. \




I suppose when they are killed they can feel good about themselves since they have a renewed sense of confidence.

Here's to hoping we will all go to our graves wih a renewed sense of confidence.
Mine will be a cappuccino.

I'd rather die with confidence than sitting in a building waiting on these fanatics to sneak back in and hit me while I'm sipping my frapp. .Have you seen how beautiful the new building is? How talented is the architect is for designing such magnificence? The Ironworkers have worked to get this up and show we haven't given up and no matter how we go , we've told the world we haven't given up.

Time lapse video of the new World Trade CenteR - YouTube

Time lapse video of the new World Trade CenteR - YouTube

Here's some confidence to share with everyone who will be working in this building. I hope everyone realizes how much it takes out of these workers and how proud they are to do this. I have the faith that this new building will be safe for everyone and a monument to our hope and our country's dedication to service. 'One World'. A perfect name for a perfect building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...bcGU_ckI0&NR=1

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Both World Wars the Armies were mainly Conscription ones, and the Regulars only made up a small total of the overall force. I myself was called up after WW2, not that wanted to be called up. Still wound up fighting in two separate conflicts and I was a good soldier, and as good as any Regular. Most of the conscripted soldiers were well educated and many of them better than the officers that led them, so how it can be said that Conscription dragged the army down or they were not as good as a Regular soldier is rubbish, and many of them died fighting for their country, well they did in the UK who have been fighting non stop from the end of WW2 and 1969 has been the only year that the British Army did not lose a man in Action and very few countries can say that.

I can understand if a major threat is about to be upon your entire country, and you are in a survival circumstance.

However, fighting distant brush wars for people who are not your own, that drag on for a decade or so in today's instant gratification society. With today's media.

Imagine if we had a draft during the Iraq war? It caused enough trouble without a draft with over media indulgence as it was.

Also if Vietnam teaches us anything there is servere problems with dealing with people who really really do not want to be there. The U.S. homefront has changed forever since Vietnam and it will never go back, at least for us to how the Homefront and morale at home was during WW ll.

Not even if there was a third World War.

Also, I look at other countries.

From what I understand Russia Has consripted service even during peace time. They have serious problems with younger conscripts and discipline and behaviour problems.

Hence why maybe Russia is looking at the prospect of foriegn troops to bolster their ranks?

China is moving away from a unweildy consript army, and is taking note of the U.S. volunteer driven force.

Israel however has massive reserve force, but Israel has to, they have no choice being as they are surrounded by potential enemies. But also they are reserve forces (if I am correct) meaning not always active, as for Israel this would be very un cost effective.

Which brings up a bigger question, do you want a small well benifitted well equippted force. Or a large, less equippted, with less benifits and opprotunties to the armed forces at a whole?

The U.S. is projected to owe 11.5 trillion dollars in pensions of goverment workers (including military) in the next 20 years. Imagine if we had an armed forces four times this size.

Good bye retirments, hello standing armies.

I'm in no way saying that conscripted armies are ineffective and less desirable. America has historically used conscripts in her military during times of war. If it is a total war, then that's a route we can go. The problem is that todays conflicts are quite limited where precision and effectiveness are necessary to win the day. This is much easier to achieve via an all volunteer force vs a conscripted one. Todays serving soldiers are not only volunteering during a time of war, but, volunteering again and again to stay knowing they will have to go and fight. This creates a very effective and experienced NCO/junior officer corps which is what is absolutely necessary to have an effective, battle ready force.

Can it be done with conscripts? Sure...but at more cost and potentially more lives lost over time. Vietnam is a good example for the US to use. The first three years of the major combat operations the US force was largely volunteer. As the war dragged on, unpopularity sored, and casualties grew, more and more draftees were needed to fill the gaps. This inherantly posed a lot of problems for units down range with the high turnover rate of personnel and units losing a lot of the experience within their ranks at any given time. I'm not saying that draftees won't fight...anyone will fight when their lives are on the line...But, over time, as demonstrated by less unit effectiveness towards the end of the war, this turnover rate and 2 year or less enlistments degraded combat effectiveness over time.

Draftees will fight for the right reasons, WWII is a great example, 2/3 of all US service members were draftees. Vietnam, by comparison only had 1/3, but without one unifying cause. The effects are pretty clear to me.

Originally Posted by brinktk

Draftees will fight for the right reasons, WWII is a great example, 2/3 of all US service members were draftees. Vietnam, by comparison only had 1/3, but without one unifying cause. The effects are pretty clear to me.

I have also read that, despite all the “vets” stories, draftees were not in combat arms in VN in significant numbers.

Me too.
The reasons why you go to war matters a great deal.

As a citizen of a country that has had both during my TIS I can say this.
Our conscriptionsystem has produced some outstanding soldiers.
Men who has had a chance to do their conscription service, return to civilian society and in some cases found it lacking.
Returning to make a career of the military.
When they return they have had some vital lifeexperience and some skillsets uniqe to military,s worldwide.
EVERYONE has wrinkled their noses when these troops arrive at a flashpoint somewhere in the world.
Not many do so when they leave, quite the contarary.
However, when invasiondefence where PC these forces were badly equipped and under paid. And STILL wanted to make a difference.

Fast forward to today.
Today my country has a standing army and are starting to realize it is hard to get the recruits they want.
The ones with the life experience needed to solve rapidly appearing problems and situations.
They are better paid, and they are motivated to make **** go boom but the question remains if they are the people that are right for the job.
I guess time will tell what will happen.
Thus far the last classes of conscripts are the backbone of the Swedish military and the ones that are out in the world making a difference for the right reasons.
Not because it was the only job they could get...With a waiver..

And so it goes..