Mandatory Military Service a good idea or a bad one?

Hey there, this is my first official posting and I would just like to say thanks to everyone for posting this. I stated in the intro to myself that I'm doing a paper on this very topic and I am so glad there are so many differing opinions. Please continue to post on this topic.:type:
 
Hi....I think in country like ours there is a need for mandatory military service, as the country is growing economically and the youth today has various avenues to look up the thought of serving nation through defense forces is vaporizing.Today the defense forces are remembered only at the time of terrorist attacks or any other emergency.Their contribution and their sacrifice is only remembered or honored during republic day function/ parade.
Its not only about serving but also about self improvement and discipline, which is with you till the last.
 
I was a draftee during the VN war. I made the Army my career and saw the end of the draft.

I support some kind of public service for all in the US - but not in the military.

When the **** hit’s the fan I don’t want to depend on somebody who doesn’t want to be there.

Plato: The Golden race is with the gods, who are in heaven, in the fixed sphere, who chiefly hold command in the providence exercised toward men. Of those who die in military service…shall we not say they are
chief of the golden race?
 
Mandatory military service is both good and bad.

If we are going to have it, it will have to be better organised than it is in most countries, as it does cause a huge amount of disruption and bad feeling. Disruption to the lives of those drafted, and bad feeling by all sorts of people including Regular Service personnel who tend to look down on draftees, draftees who feel they are wasting their time and unappreciated, employers who resent the disruption to their workforce and of course there will always be some who are excused for one reason or another. (Sons of the rich and powerful who either find a way around it or get some perk drafting)

The other thing is cost. In today's financial climate I feel that it is just not cost effective.
 
Last edited:
The conscript military may work better for smaller countries; I was in the conscript army in Sweden. In consideration of the size of the population in Sweden (9 million), a professional military will not work so well, the numbers of the recruits will drop under a level from where Sweden cannot longer defend itself. The principles to decide if a country shall have a professional of a conscript based military is an exclusive national decision. Will the conscript military create functional and good soldiers? Yes, it can, it also depends on the context in where they are used. To defend their homes; it will be well functional for that purpose. To have the armed forces to participate in peacekeeping, peace enforcement operation abroad, I do not think so, the professionals are much better to conduct these kinds of operations.

My personal experience from the conscript force; we were paid much lesser than the people living on social welfare; we even had lesser than the criminals in the Swedish penitentiaries, many recruits had civilian jobs and they lost economically to be there, it does not motivate them to be there, furthermore, if they wanted to reach higher studies; they were forced to wait. The conscript force is also more expensive for the country than a lesser professional force, but small countries cannot afford to have a professional army of political reasons. If you can have a professional force, choose it, you get more bangs for the buck. During Falklands; the Argentina had a conscript military, the British did not.
 
Last edited:
Mandatory service for men AND women .....

As a military man of over 20 years service, it is my profound opinion that mandatory service (military or otherwise), should be the law of the land.

It would point out the value to all of us of the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. Not only should males be subject to mandatory service, women should also be called up for mandatory service.

The service (3 years or longer), should be served out before a person reaches the age of 35. There should be NO exceptions. Service could be carried out at the same time as a college education. Service could be 20 hours a week (as long as a full college load was maintained).

Whether a person works 32 hours a week picking up trash along America's highways (or similar work), works 20 hours a week while going to college, or serves a hitch in the military, either one would qualify.

As to other countries, the value of mandatory service in their countries, should be proportional to the value they place on the freedoms that they enjoy.

The examples above are just suggestions. Other programs could be formulated that could also count as mandatory service.
 
Muscogeemike.......i can assure when the shooting starts you will get plenty of support from any draftee as they will want to go home at the end of their stint.
 
Let's look at a few factors to take into consideration about conscription.

Economy- For a country the size of the US, to make every military age male serve in the military would be a huge financial burden during peace time. It simply does not make financial sense. There would also be a severe impact on the level of readiness and amount of training that can be administered to such a huge force. The current All volunteer concept allows for a smaller force that is VERY well trained. It costs money to go to the field, do combined arms exercises, train, equip, and care for soldiers AND their families. The defense budget is already a huge part of out national spending...the amount of money required to do all this with a conscripted force would be daunting.

Readiness- The US military of today is the best trained and equipped military this country has ever had. The re-enlistment rate of is very high in todays military which allows for much of the operational and training experience that is hard earned to remain within the ranks. This is crucial for todays operational environment where small wars and peace keeping look to be the future of the US military and multiple deployments to combat environments are the rule rather than the exception. Having this experience within the ranks, and especially within the chain of command allows for much more dynamic and combat efficient forces.

Turnover- With the rotational nature of units to forward deployed areas having a high number of conscripts means a force is losing much of their operational knowledge after every deployment. Once again, this will make the units less effective unless more time, money, and training is done to get units back up to speed in between deployments.

Disconnect- With a conscripted force a much larger number of the general public will likely take an interest in the foriegn policy that this country embarks upon. Currently, less than 1% of the US population is serving or has served in the military during our 10 year conflict with the War on Terror. Even with access to information at an unprecedented level, there is certainly a disconnect and lack of understanding between the general public and the military. This can lead to problems which are now begining to rear their ugly head with growing regularity. Whereas a conscripted force would allow for a lot of the problems and issues that military members endure to be felt in the homes of families who would have other wise not had the investment of a family member in harms way.

I will continue with more later...to be continued
 
If we look at the history of the US, we have traditionally had a relatively small military during peace time and then mobilized for war when the proverbial sh!t hits the fan. It wasn't until the advent of the cold war that a draft was introduced during peace time and continued through the Korean and Vietnam wars. When the chips are down, historically, draftees have stood the test of time and done their service admirably during times of conflict. Draftees were very good at keeping chains of command honest because drafted soldiers came from every fabric of US society, ranging from the fresh out of highschool 18 year old to the 26 year old college graduate. You get a wider selection of "world" experience that any organization benefits from. You also get a willingness for subordinates who are not career minded to tell a superior to shove it if they are being asked to do an arbitrary or stupid order...which has its benefits.

I guess it all comes down to necessity. What are we willing to give up for one or the other? An all volunteer force allows for professional soldiers that are very effective, yet, they largely bare the brunt of any national decision to go to war. Or you get a conscripted force that has the awareness of the public, and by default the politicians, but a force that will likely take many more casualties and be less effective because of high turn over and less training.
 
In Belgium we've had a conscript army for most of it's existence. A few decades ago it was abandoned. The conscripts were very poorly paid and on average not very well motivated. We had conscript soldiers, NCO's and officers, depending on their certificates. They had to serve approx 1 year (in Germany a few months less than in Belgium). They were not very well liked by the volunteers.
Positive for the concript army is that it is cheap (depending on their pay of course, but this is almost always very low). Also the conscripts learn discipline and after doing their time they are more mature.
Drawbacks are a less motivated force. When they finally start to know their job they go back to civilian life.
I prefer a volunteers army. Small, efficient and well equiped. In Belgium it is only small :)
 
VDKMS said:
In Belgium we've had a conscript army for most of it's existence. A few decades ago it was abandoned. The conscripts were very poorly paid and on average not very well motivated. We had conscript soldiers, NCO's and officers, depending on their certificates. They had to serve approx 1 year (in Germany a few months less than in Belgium). They were not very well liked by the volunteers.
Positive for the concript army is that it is cheap (depending on their pay of course, but this is almost always very low). Also the conscripts learn discipline and after doing their time they are more mature.
Drawbacks are a less motivated force. When they finally start to know their job they go back to civilian life.
I prefer a volunteers army. Small, efficient and well equiped. In Belgium it is only small :)
Click to expand...

In Sweden the conscript military was more expensive than the professional army implemented now, all the hundred thousand men who left their civilian jobs to do this, provided lesser taxes for the state, and an increasing of the cost. They were not motivated at all, I have sometimes pondered if I had been there if it had been a volunteer service, probably not, but I liked it, not always. The positive part of a conscript military is; all the resources are there, in a professional military, many good resources will never be there. In Sweden, a private served 7.5 months, a squad leader 10 months, a platoon leader 12 months, company leader 15 months. All NCOs were conscripts unless they were cadets, on their way to be officers (2nd Lt)
 
Last edited:
Times are true for many units, not all.
A Jägare (Pvt) did 12 months, squad leader 15 months.
The longer service were for more difficult positions.
All of academic interest nowadays ofcourse since the conscription service (wich in practicallity were voluntary in the end years) has been discontinued.

These days the services stuggle to find new recruits willing to get the job done since it pays lousy and swedish kids tends to shy away from ever leaving their comfortzone.

We are rapidly starting to pay for becoming a nation of curlingkids..

KJ sends..
 
I have always been in favour of compulsory military service, it installs discipline which is sadly lacking in too many youths in the UK at the present time.

However, whether it is cost effective is another matter, as we all know politicians are too fond of counting Dollars and Cents, or Pounds and Pence.
 
We had a young bloke in our town who was given the option of going to prison for 12 months or joining the Army.

He chose to join the Army, but in hindsight it was not a good idea. Now, he could have turned out really well, as it appears he was a born leader, however all he did was use his persuasive ways to lead others into trouble, being cunning enough to always distance himself from the effects of his handiwork. He completed his three year minimum hitch and in that time led more of his mates astray and got more people into big trouble than he was worth.

He was not given the option of re-engagement and when he got out, he disappeared down to the city. About ten years ago earnt himself a single column inch in the deaths notices in the paper, having been shot by one of his druggie acquaintances.

There are always a few who are just not worth the effort.
 
senojekips said:
We had a young bloke in our town who was given the option of going to prison for 12 months or joining the Army.

He chose to join the Army, but in hindsight it was not a good idea. Now, he could have turned out really well, as it appears he was a born leader, however all he did was use his persuasive ways to lead others into trouble, being cunning enough to always distance himself from the effects of his handiwork. He completed his three year minimum hitch and in that time led more of his mates astray and got more people into big trouble than he was worth.

He was not given the option of re-engagement and when he got out, he disappeared down to the city. About ten years ago earnt himself a single column inch in the deaths notices in the paper, having been shot by one of his druggie acquaintances.

There are always a few who are just not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

The Kray brothers were called up to do their National Service. They spent more time in the glass house then they did on unit. In the end I think they were thrown out.

Sadly there will always be a few rotten apples.
 
KJ said:
Times are true for many units, not all.
A Jägare (Pvt) did 12 months, squad leader 15 months.
The longer service were for more difficult positions.
All of academic interest nowadays ofcourse since the conscription service (wich in practicallity were voluntary in the end years) has been discontinued.

These days the services stuggle to find new recruits willing to get the job done since it pays lousy and swedish kids tends to shy away from ever leaving their comfortzone.

We are rapidly starting to pay for becoming a nation of curlingkids..

KJ sends..
Click to expand...

I think the Navy boys served 12/15 months too. I agree with you KJ, this will end with a disaster
 
I feel that mandatory service is a very good idea, but for that to work you still need to have an element of volunteer service. To keep your military from becoming an overpopulated undertrained monstrosity you should allow the troops to choose how they wanted to serve, some would volunteer for say better paying frontline jobs while others would not want to fight so they could do domestic security, research, maintenance on roads and buildings stateside, or other common jobs.
 
conscription is something i never will really see the point of. sure, durring a major crisis there should be conscription, but as the United States saw after Pearl Harbor if there is a 'major crisis' there will be so many volunteers for duty that conscription can still be seen as a mute point.
 
2/3 of all US servicemen in WWII were draftees. In contrast 2/3 of all Vietnam veterans were volunteers. Don't fall into the movie traps of grandeur. I would expect the recruiting offices to be overflowing for a few months after a crisis...after that...the lines will thin and more and more will be called to go by the government.

Which is more admirable, the guy who volunteers...or the guy who doesn't but does the job anyways?
 
brinktk said:
2/3 of all US servicemen in WWII were draftees. In contrast 2/3 of all Vietnam veterans were volunteers. Don't fall into the movie traps of grandeur. I would expect the recruiting offices to be overflowing for a few months after a crisis...after that...the lines will thin and more and more will be called to go by the government.

Which is more admirable, the guy who volunteers...or the guy who doesn't but does the job anyways?
Click to expand...

Your comment that there will be an overflowing number of recruits after a major crisis, didn't pan out after the Twin Towers attack. Yes there were a few volunteers .. BUT .. it wasn't the tide you prognosticated. Military volunteerism is down .. the last recruiter I talked to, said there was talk of lowering the requirements for recruits.

Don't know about you .. but, that says a lot to me (considering the number of men/women that are out of work).

Today's society is not as pro-military as it was during past periods of crisis. A barometer of that, can be drawn from the fact that military men/women serving oversees, are serving their fifth, sixth and seventh tours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top