Mandatory Military Service a good idea or a bad one?

[muscogeemike]

Haha 42 thats not the first time you have started a post to me with that.

There are also many other job roles, so say for instance a third of the population is overweight- while it is not traditionally an armys style I am sure they could cater to different physiques.
The rooms where soldiers look at computer screens all day would really suit some people, and there are plenty of jobs for truck drivers.

I think compulsory service would be good for some people.

You are right up to a point. I was drafted in the US in the 60’s and standards were low, but when the war and the draft ended the Army’s need for “bodies” shrank and the standards went up.

There are military jobs where physical fitness is not, necessarily, a requirement. The problem is that an overweight Officer or NCO loses credibility with a very fit soldier. The Army has experimented with the “Technical” and “Specialist” ranks to try to address this problem and has never totally succeeded.

I was on active duty during the first Gulf War. That Gen Norman Schwarzkoph and at least one other Gen on his staff (who was on TV regularly) did not probably meet the current height to weight standards did not go un noticed. But who is going to tell a 4 star General (or any General) he is fat?

As the needs of the service change so will the physical (and mental) standards. If the military can be choosy they will be; if they need more people they will lower standards.

 

[Yossarian]

Unfortunately, they get too much nutrition.
There are increasing numbers of obese young people. The medical examinations in the armed forces confirms this. Young people are more pasive today than they were. They spend a lot of time looking at a screen PC, Ipad or Iphone.

This is a product of consumersm, and this has been a long long time coming, as more and more convient innovations are made to stock store shelves everywhere this is the long term effect.

Now we have a over indulging society that feels entitled to these things and childeren today are raised from day 1 to also strive for entitlement to these un sustainible things.

It's not that over night everbody decided "hey let's all get lazy". It's just run away consumerism trains us with all these nifty little things to make us look "younger", make you look "slimmer" and "lose weight by simpley eating!".

That last one is a true Advertising slogan in the U.S., lose weight by simply eating whatever you want....

Like I mentioned, this started maybe 50 or 60 years ago, and wasn't taught in the latest video game or tv drama,( which most of us Americans seem to lie about when asked but we all seem to not get enough of.)

One of mankind's greatest attention catching methods ever devised.

I thank the Heaven's the Nazis didn't have a Ipad gaming ap on facebook mobile in 1939. Or ran Europe's first "So you think you Can Dance?"...

Welcome to the 21st century, as I type this I am watching the second hand on my analog watch tick away as the next generation grows up and I can sit back at a ripe age and see where this run away profit driven campgain to fill the world with push button luxury ,and electric scooters for the ever increasing horde of younger and younger obese people to ride around on takes us.

As often these problems are not felt to be problems until generations have pasted, and will not be taken seriously as even more generations go by so people can stand in retrospect to ask themselves why this isn't working.

I guess you can say I am living history?

 

[Chief Bones]

As I have said before, the kids today don't value the freedoms they have. Mandatory service would go a long ways towards inoculating them with the realization that freedom isn't free .. that it does have a price.

Those that have gone before them have paid a price to ensure they can continue to live in a free society and enjoy the freedoms they take for granted today.

 

[BritinBritain]

As I have said before, the kids today don't value the freedoms they have. Mandatory service would go a long ways towards inoculating them with the realization that freedom isn't free .. that it does have a price.

Those that have gone before them have paid a price to ensure they can continue to live in a free society and enjoy the freedoms they take for granted today.

I couldn't agree more.

Haha 42 thats not the first time you have started a post to me with that.

Of getting into what? The military? The bar really isnt that high to get accepted- obviously I am not talking about the RM, but you cannot walk in off the street to join them anyway.

What I am trying to get at is the diversity of the roles needed in an effective army. As an example the US army has around three people in logistics for every soldier in combat.

There are also many other job roles, so say for instance a third of the population is overweight- while it is not traditionally an armys style I am sure they could cater to different physiques.
The rooms where soldiers look at computer screens all day would really suit some people, and there are plenty of jobs for truck drivers.

I think compulsory service would be good for some people.

Even when I was in the Territorial Army (weekend soldiers) in UK we had to pass an annual BFT or Battle Fitness Test and all we were, were truck drivers.

But I do agree I would like to see some sort of compulsory service.

When I was a regular in the RAF we did very little if any fitness tests, (except during basic training) but simply doing our jobs kept us pretty fit.

 

[headwards]

The NZ TF is the same, we all have to pass. Funnily enough very few people struggle with a bft here but the run causes much more grief. Carrying your house is more important then running anyway.

I reckon a big guy should struggle with a pack less then a little guy as its far less of his body weight proportionally, Of course my logic makes no sense when you hear about 60kg guys passing selection. Its just grit at the end of the day.

I think its funny how older gents think the new generation is going to hell. Theres good and bad in every batch but most guys I know are bloody good.
Basic training would help them though. It helped me.

 

[MontyB]

Hehe yes I found the toughest thing for most people and it included TF personnel transitioning to RF was the aptitude test, I had about 30 people in my group including about 10 TF and only two of us made it through.

The physical side of enlisting was not difficult and at the time I hated running but still made it with time to spare.

I agree it is funny because I suspect if people sat down and look at what the previous generation said about them you would find that little has changed between generations.

 

[headwards]

Yes the new aptitute tests can catch you out alrite. I sat the cops online one last week and it was a real challenge aye.
The middy had to do one not long ago that had me baffled as well- counting blocks and such.

 

[Yossarian]

As I have said before, the kids today don't value the freedoms they have. Mandatory service would go a long ways towards inoculating them with the realization that freedom isn't free .. that it does have a price.

Those that have gone before them have paid a price to ensure they can continue to live in a free society and enjoy the freedoms they take for granted today.

I agree to an extent.

However , there is one problem, if that started right now, with today's pool or young people, many of them would not really care, would do the minimum to get by and over all a couple tens of thousands of these types of individuals would degrade the effectiveness of the Armed Forces.

When you have a ton of consripts who feel they shouldn't have to nor even want to be there then that's what you get, a large heavily manned military of conscripts. And all the "lazy" lack of aptitude problems you have with them as civilians you have effectivly transfered to the military.

I have seen one instance of this, the ole' "that'll straighten em", but it doesn't always work, some will still break the rules, not really give two cents, serve a few stents waste thousands of tax payer dollars in judicial fees and still get kicked out anyway.

Also with today's ever increasing demands for many of the jobs in the armed forces, if you open the flood gates for anybody for conscripted service then what will they do?

Even armies that do have mandatory service (excluding the tiny nation of Israel) are realizing that the 21st century wars won't be fought or won by this method of recruiting.

Even enormous militaries like the PLA are realizing (mainly from American Demostration) that more volunteer driven, and smaller highly trained and equipped military structures are the ticket to success in this century.

 

[MontyB]

Yes the new aptitute tests can catch you out alrite. I sat the cops online one last week and it was a real challenge aye.
The middy had to do one not long ago that had me baffled as well- counting blocks and such.

I would love to see the new aptitude tests as the ones I sat were at best easy, I was really amazed people failed it especially since we had all passed UE Math and English.

What I don't get is how people managed to fail the EFL tests 12 minutes to run 2.4km is only fractionally above brisk walking speed and anyone that struggles to do a few press ups and curl ups I think it was 15 and 50 respectively at 18 years old should probably be committed to a hospital, everyone in the group I went through with I think met RFL-1 in the initial tests.

But then that was 20+ years ago I assume things have changed a bit since.

 

[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.

 

[Yossarian]

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?

 

[Sara]

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.

 

[brinktk]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Sara]

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.:cheers::drink:
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.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6D48XxOQeg"]Time lapse video of the new World Trade CenteR - YouTube[/ame]

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=fvwp&v=YhbcGU_ckI0&NR=1

 

[Yossarian]

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.

 

[brinktk]

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.

 

[muscogeemike]

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.

 

[KJ]

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..