Should western countries adopt mandatory military service?

Joined Jan 2010
2,974 Posts | 1+
Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
Last edited:
Two weeks a year and one day a month, then you are qualified to drop your civilian employment and jump straight into your tank, aircraft or warship and sally forth to do battle?

It requires constant and intensive training to gain the expertise required of an effective military force, and these skills deteriorate rapidly if not exercised continuously, therefore a full time professional military force is essential. A Swiss model force such as you describe is fine for enhancing the professional military as required, but it is not able or indended to replace it.

There is a learning curve after Congress declares War, but a possible War Plan to open the hardened 20 foot thick concrete silo caps on our MIRVED missiles and arm them, then send our Stealth stuff to take all other Command and Control; to introduce a second thought into our enemies. This will give our conscripts a chance to get into an Airlift and on to the overseas battlefields.

This is so much better than a Standing Army. With the dynamics of weaponry, the conscripts can do as well as the pros. Some pros will remain in peacetime to train both pros and conscripts, and manage the Hydrogen weaponry, intel; and many old timers like me shall teach them quickly to do what a man (and woman) gotta do.

Lake
 

KGB

Joined Apr 2011
3,452 Posts | 10+
You know, army is very interesting thing. You win in both the cases - if you go or if you do not go there.

But if you ask me, had I have choice 25 years ago, when I was taken there whithout being asked do I wish to join, or not - shall I repeat that experience, I will say - yes.

Army experience is very, very good thing. You certainly could manage perfectly whithout it - no doubt.

But if you have been in the army, you know more about ppl and life, and, what is important, you learn it qiute early, beeing actually an young kid, thinking, that the world is endless and "the sea is to your knees", as Bulgarians love to say:)

What`s more, you learn not to be surprised by some tough things and you learn, that difficulties might be easy, actually :)

See here some video for the Bulgarian army, taken in the 1970-is. It was not the best army we had, but it was good. It was a Soviet type of army, but I want to show you faces of the soldiers.

Specially pay attention to the soldiers, who are leaving - there are some pictures of the leaving ceremony in the end of the clip (in the beginning - ceremony of graduating the Military University). In this moment those men can go trough everything.

This experience is quite useful for every man or woman and for every nation, indeed.

(The leaving ceremony is not official one, that`s why soldiers are in their every day uniforms. Quite old and brown, but good for service, at least in 1970-is) :)



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV0PqWJ8DXg"]Сбогом Мария -Емил Димитров / Sbogom Maria -Emil Dimitrov - YouTube[/ame]
 

KGB

Joined Apr 2011
3,452 Posts | 10+
Now, a modern army should be professional - it is required by the technology level of the world. But see Israel - a country, which is on the front line. They do combine professional and compulsory service and are one of the strongest in the region ;)
 
Joined Jan 2010
2,974 Posts | 1+
Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
Now, a modern army should be professional - it is required by the technology level of the world. But see Israel - a country, which is on the front line. They do combine professional and compulsory service and are one of the strongest in the region ;)

When has Israel had the luxury of peacetime??? The draft must be their status quo.

Lake
 
Joined May 2012
1,714 Posts | 1+
Yes, Israel needs as much young blood as possible to wage their war of terror..
 

KGB

Joined Apr 2011
3,452 Posts | 10+
Looking strictly military, i.e. objectively, Israel is a front line country. And needs effective army, and the effective army is mixed - compulsory and professional.

Yes, there are nations, which are lucky to live in peace, but there is one very important thing!
War can substitute peace much faster, than a nation could prepare for war, i.e. build an effective army.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum", you know. If you want peace, build a good army. And good army is that - proffesionals + compulsory.
 

KGB

Joined Apr 2011
3,452 Posts | 10+
School is part of your life. Boyscout is part of your life. University and the college is part of your life.

Why not the army?

Of course, if someone does not want to go - please, no problem. Just declare it and that`s all. But if you do not declare - please join the club ;) That should be the situation in peace time.

In a wartime - we are all obliged to serve, otherwise the nation will die.
 
Joined Jun 2012
44 Posts | 0+
Palatine Hills
This is one of those questions that results in an extremely heated debate. Honestly, I see no issue with mandatory military service. A nation always needs an army, while some may argue that mandatory service isn't good for the army, making it less professional. I disagree, lets say god forbid my nation is invaded, I believe having militarily trained citizens would be crucial to the defense of my borders. But then again, this is coming from a person whose family mostly served in the military, and I myself hope to serve in the Army Airborne one day. I had a discussion with my father about this, and he himself volunteered for the Marines in Vietnam. He said to me that those who didn't want to go needed to suck it up and do their duty for their country. You have to EARN your right to be a citizen of a free country. The draft dodgers of the Vietnam war were traitors, plain and simple. If I was president, NONE of them would have been pardoned and allowed to come back home.
 
Joined Jul 2011
7,400 Posts | 945+
Australia
This is one of those questions that results in an extremely heated debate. Honestly, I see no issue with mandatory military service. A nation always needs an army, while some may argue that mandatory service isn't good for the army, making it less professional. I disagree, lets say god forbid my nation is invaded, I believe having militarily trained citizens would be crucial to the defense of my borders. But then again, this is coming from a person whose family mostly served in the military, and I myself hope to serve in the Army Airborne one day. I had a discussion with my father about this, and he himself volunteered for the Marines in Vietnam. He said to me that those who didn't want to go needed to suck it up and do their duty for their country. You have to EARN your right to be a citizen of a free country. The draft dodgers of the Vietnam war were traitors, plain and simple. If I was president, NONE of them would have been pardoned and allowed to come back home.

You say that conscription is necessary against the possibility your country may be invaded, yet call those who refused conscription for Vietnam traitors? How was the war in Vietnam an invasion threat to the USA?
 
Joined Jun 2012
44 Posts | 0+
Palatine Hills
Regardless if it is a war overseas or a war within a country's borders, it's that persons job to answer their country's call.
 
Joined May 2012
1,714 Posts | 1+
That stupid army saying "i would rather have 10 men who volounteered to fight than 20 conscripts" is just stupid, at the end of a day, a man will fight for his life no matter if he volounteered to be there or not, hes there now and hes not gonna be like, oh i dont wanna be here you just go ahead and shoot me, no its not gonna be like that, i would rather 100 conscript guns than 50 volounteer guns.
 
Joined Sep 2011
8,999 Posts | 2,990+
Me, I'd like to have conscripts who would have volunteered anyway.

The bit that can really make a difference is not between conscript and volunteer, but between professional and part-time soldiers.

Professional means just that, making a career out of it, and spending all their time at it. Then it will boil down to 1) do you have the money to maintain a full-time professional army of SUFFICIENT size?, 2) do you have a sufficient population base for the same?, and 3) are you sure you have the political and administrative system in place that will prevent the generals from just taking over when they feel like it?

If the answer is "No" to any of these three, I'd start looking into conscription.
 
Joined May 2012
1,714 Posts | 1+
Australia better start conscripting then. with only 50,000 soldiers (including reserves) with a population of 22.2 million australia has a unsufficient amount of manpower, chilea only has a population of 17 million on have a 52,000 man army, with 12,000 conscripts.
 
Joined Apr 2012
314 Posts | 0+
California
Last edited:
Mandatory military service is a huge breach of personal liberty. That is why there have to be really good reasons for it, not just something like teaching young men discipline. In case a country is under threat of an invasion, mandatory military service can be justified and can indeed contribute decisively to the defense of a country. Of course, at the time the invasion occurs, it is too late for such a measure; that is why the risks have to be analyzed well before.

Currently, after the end of the Cold War, I don't see such a risk in most Western countries. Today's threats are different, e.g. terrorist attacks or attacks on citizens or institutions abroad (embassies, ships, etc.). In part, military engagements abroad to defend a country's interests may be justified, but as they are not directly related to the defense of one's homeland, they don't justify mandatory military service. Even if we don't consider civil rights, a professional army is much more capable of controlling such threats.

Reading some of the posts in this threat I wonder about the life experience or the lack thereof of some of the posters. When I had to serve in the military, I experienced it exactly as I wrote above - a huge breach of my personal liberty. For the first time in my life, I had lost my freedom. This is different from mandatory schooling or working at a job. Some of my comrades decided that the conditions under which we served were so bad that they just didn't show up any more. So they were chased by military police, tracked down like criminals and put into jail.

Germany has now paused military service starting last year. This means that the law still remains in the constitution, but the implementation is now paused for the time being. In reality, it comes close to abolishing military service, and I don't see any chance of it being reintroduced in the next decades. Which is a good thing. In fact, I was astonished about how long it took the government to come to this obvious conclusion. Didn't the Cold War end in 1989-1991, with the last Soviet Soldiers leaving Germany in 1994?

Besides the breach of personal liberty, there was another problem with German military service: injustice and inequality. Many people dodged military service, and we as the conscripted felt like the nation's idiots. The problem was twofold: First, many people avoided military service by conscientious objection. In principle, this is of course okay, and many of these men did a valuable (and difficult) job in hospitals. But many of these conscientious objectors actually got very easy-going jobs, often abroad and with no real effort involved. Nothing like being chased around by drill sergeants. Second, many men dodged mandatory service altogether, often on alleged health reasons (yes, there are many examples of professional sportsmen being unfit for service). I still feel the injustice when I read CVs from persons who were smart enough to avoid service, whereas I have lost a year in my professional career due to my honesty and sense of duty.

So please keep all this in mind when discussing such a far-reaching issue.
I agree. Mandatory military service is a breach of individual liberty, and these days it is generally not necessary. The threats today and the nature of combat these days don't call for massive numbers of forced servants. Plus, in most countries it's also discriminatory.

Australia better start conscripting then. with only 50,000 soldiers (including reserves) with a population of 22.2 million australia has a unsufficient amount of manpower, chilea only has a population of 17 million on have a 52,000 man army, with 12,000 conscripts.
Seems like they're doing fine without massive militaries.
 
Joined Jul 2011
7,400 Posts | 945+
Australia
That stupid army saying "i would rather have 10 men who volounteered to fight than 20 conscripts" is just stupid, at the end of a day, a man will fight for his life no matter if he volounteered to be there or not, hes there now and hes not gonna be like, oh i dont wanna be here you just go ahead and shoot me, no its not gonna be like that, i would rather 100 conscript guns than 50 volounteer guns.

You have no concept of the nature of miltary service.
 
Joined Sep 2011
24,135 Posts | 8+
------------
Regardless if it is a war overseas or a war within a country's borders, it's that persons job to answer their country's call.

Why?

If your country goes to war and is the aggressor, why should you be forced to forfeit your life?
 
Joined May 2012
1,714 Posts | 1+
Why?

If your country goes to war and is the aggressor, why should you be forced to forfeit your life?

Its not like all the conscripts are going to die, you cant look at things from worst case scenarioa (which is something us westerners are doing to much of these days), what about the english in ww2? they used conscripts? they also declared war on germany so they are the "aggressors".

And obviously if an army that had conscripts invaded a country, they would first use the full time professionals and use conscripts for secondary duties (unless immediately required on the front lines)
 
Joined May 2012
1,714 Posts | 1+
I agree. Mandatory military service is a breach of individual liberty, and these days it is generally not necessary. The threats today and the nature of combat these days don't call for massive numbers of forced servants. Plus, in most countries it's also discriminatory.


Seems like they're doing fine without massive militaries.

You would think so at first glance, but australia relies heavily on america for military support and protection, if america was to leave us to fend for ourselves and we were invaded by any neighbouring countries (all of which massively outnumber us, indonesia is the worlds largest muslim population and are right at our doorstep, not including china who have huge investments and interests in our mineral wealth) we would be in a huge problem. The army size is not sufficient for our population or land coverage, we are facing manpower shortages as it is.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top