On April 03 2013 12:57 TJ31 wrote: Like I posted already, 2 good friends of mine consider 1 year in the military as a complete and unpleasant waste of time.
Having served alongside people who considered it a waste of time, I can say it's usually a disposition not gained from the active service, but one they had from the beginning. It's a waste of time if you're not willing to make it anything more.
The same can be said about any other hobby/profession. What if we are to force everyone to take 2 years of programming courses because being a programmer is useful nowadays?
Finland can't afford a professional army, so I feel you don't have much of a point there.
Much poorer countries can afford it easily, so no, he has a point.
And how many of those countries have a 1324km border with Russia? It's been well studied in Finland that a mandatory enlistment is the only way (other than NATO membership) to uphold a "credible defence", which is the official finnish defence doctrine.
It's not about winning a war, it's not about stopping an attack. It's about making sure the attacking nation takes so much damage it's not worth it. People here seem to believe it doesn't matter how many men you have because technology decides who wins. That's completely wrong.
It is all about the money. Platoons of soldiers are cheap, while planes, tanks and ships are not. From what I gather about modern warfare, attacks from 1 km+ away from any direction makes soldiers almost worthless. Some anti-air is possible in some situations, but generally you get on the ground when rockets or mortar or whatever, hits you!
You are correct about it being about making it expensive to do damage, but soldiers are cannonfodder rather than what determines the winner of a modern war.
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
Mandatory one year ? That's insane.
Why is that insane?
On April 03 2013 07:26 Glurkenspurk wrote:
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
I'm a pacifist. I refuse to blindly take killing orders from old white people so I can gain some sort of bullshit "mental discipline."
I'd rather spend time in a prison cell than ever do anything to support or work for the military. Forcing me into it isn't going to change that.
Who said anything about killing orders? You think military training involves murder?
On April 03 2013 07:27 Acritter wrote:
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
I'd rather it be some kind of public service that may or may not be military. I still think only volunteers should go to the front lines (outside of some incomparable crisis, which hasn't happened in a long time for first-world countries), but public service would help break down social barriers and form a more united public.
We don't need more soldiers, but we certainly need more public good. For the US, at least.
I agree, only those who want to go to the front lines should go, that's what I posted. Public service could be a regular activity in the process also.
There seems to be a degree of confusion over my suggestion.
Military training does not involve killing people or going to the front lines =/
Military training however is a complete waste of time within the modern society. You are advocating that everyone should be forced to waste a year of their life, trudging around in the mud, doing mundane pointless tasks playing an adult version of boyscouts out of some misconceived perception that it will actually benefit society through "improved physical fitness and mental discipline" (whatever mental discipline is supposed to mean? Mindlessly following orders?). Society will benefit more from having everyone take an extra year of education than crawling in mud and generally people do not like being forced to do stuff. The conscription-based army is an archaic institution in the western part of the world which can really only be abolished too late.
I'm pretty much insulted by this statement, and I'm sure any other serving member of a military would be as well.
"waste a year of their life, trudging around in the mud, doing mundane pointless tasks playing an adult version of boyscouts out of some misconceived perception that it will actually benefit society through "improved physical fitness and mental discipline""
^^ I'm a member of the Royal Canadian Navy. I've successfully completed Basic Training. It took 14 weeks. I believe everyone would benefit from taking this training. It's not an adult version of boy scouts, nor is it a bunch of crawling around in the mud. We do not mindlessly follow orders. We're trained to think rationally for ourselves, and only in very extreme cases would we be ordered into harms way, or to kill someone.
Your misguided, ignorant view of what military's do seems like it's based on what you see in movies, specifically American military movies. You mention conscription based armies ar part of an archaic western society? I'm sure you've heard of South Korea since you're here on TL.
I understand this is the internet and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they generally choose to have very extreme opinions since there's no accountability for what they say, but your gross generalization of military members is a bit much.
I'm from Canada. We're not forced to join, and we rarely speak out against other countries, but I'll be god damned if someone's gonna shit all over the forces and say we're a bunch of adult boy scouts.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Discipline benefits us all. Without it, we're just a bunch of lazy fucks. Some people are born with it, others need to learn it, some never do.
Eh?
There is discipline and than there is military discipline. The latter is not a positive value.
I was lazy as hell in high school, I had talent for learning but didnt bother to put in the effort. 1 month into military training I wondered how the hell I could ever thought school was "hard". High school is life on easy mode compared to military service.
Now I am PhD in microbiology and I give my military training a lot of credit for that. It gives you perspective and discipline.
I watched many people that was at least around my level dropping out of University before completing a bachelor cause they couldn't focus on the task given to them.
And I know (second hand) people that went to military training and are terrible and lazy bums. But also I saw people lazy as hell in high school that had terrible grades that are now working as top specialists in many different fields and neither of them went through military training. All of them just grew up, funny how that process actually happens without any military training. Some do, some don't , some do later. Personal anecdotes and introspection are terrible basis for public policy. Personal anecdotes mean nothing and introspection is about as unreliable as it goes considering how people consistently lie to themselves and are unable to uncover their actual motivations. Which is not surprising considering those decisions and motives are well hidden from consciousness we are just post factum creating conscious rationalizations. How do you actually know that without that military training you would not be in the same position ? Due to post factum rationalization.
Of course I dont know that it made a difference but then you could make that argument about almost anything. Maybe it did´nt change me although I feel it did. About it being a waste of time though, it is actually not possible for anyone to say that. It is my opinion in the matter that decides if it is a waste or not, since it is my life to live.
I have never had any experience before or after that have been even remotely similar and I don´t expect that I will ever will have again. As consequence it is also the year which I can recall most memories from as it is so different from any other year in my life.
To get on topic again, it might be important to note that I did military service voluntarily. I think the mind set which you approach the military service is crucial in deciding if it is a useful experience or not. Which in turn becomes an argument against mandatory service. But in a position like Israel, Taiwan or SK it does make sense to have it regardless imo.
On April 03 2013 12:57 TJ31 wrote: Like I posted already, 2 good friends of mine consider 1 year in the military as a complete and unpleasant waste of time.
Having served alongside people who considered it a waste of time, I can say it's usually a disposition not gained from the active service, but one they had from the beginning. It's a waste of time if you're not willing to make it anything more.
The same can be said about any other hobby/profession. What if we are to force everyone to take 2 years of programming courses because being a programmer is useful nowadays?
Finland can't afford a professional army, so I feel you don't have much of a point there.
Much poorer countries can afford it easily, so no, he has a point.
And how many of those countries have a 1324km border with Russia? It's been well studied in Finland that a mandatory enlistment is the only way (other than NATO membership) to uphold a "credible defence", which is the official finnish defence doctrine.
It's not about winning a war, it's not about stopping an attack. It's about making sure the attacking nation takes so much damage it's not worth it. People here seem to believe it doesn't matter how many men you have because technology decides who wins. That's completely wrong.
I don't, manpower and technology both influence the outcome. But assuming the war with Russia is the issue I have with Finnish doctrine. That assumes some very different international circumstances. And alone you cannot make it not worth it (apart from developing nukes). Your whole doctrine seems to exist just to perpetuate the current state, which the army quite likely supports as they get more money and power.
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
Mandatory one year ? That's insane.
Why is that insane?
On April 03 2013 07:26 Glurkenspurk wrote:
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
I'm a pacifist. I refuse to blindly take killing orders from old white people so I can gain some sort of bullshit "mental discipline."
I'd rather spend time in a prison cell than ever do anything to support or work for the military. Forcing me into it isn't going to change that.
Who said anything about killing orders? You think military training involves murder?
On April 03 2013 07:27 Acritter wrote:
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
I'd rather it be some kind of public service that may or may not be military. I still think only volunteers should go to the front lines (outside of some incomparable crisis, which hasn't happened in a long time for first-world countries), but public service would help break down social barriers and form a more united public.
We don't need more soldiers, but we certainly need more public good. For the US, at least.
I agree, only those who want to go to the front lines should go, that's what I posted. Public service could be a regular activity in the process also.
There seems to be a degree of confusion over my suggestion.
Military training does not involve killing people or going to the front lines =/
Military training however is a complete waste of time within the modern society. You are advocating that everyone should be forced to waste a year of their life, trudging around in the mud, doing mundane pointless tasks playing an adult version of boyscouts out of some misconceived perception that it will actually benefit society through "improved physical fitness and mental discipline" (whatever mental discipline is supposed to mean? Mindlessly following orders?). Society will benefit more from having everyone take an extra year of education than crawling in mud and generally people do not like being forced to do stuff. The conscription-based army is an archaic institution in the western part of the world which can really only be abolished too late.
I'm pretty much insulted by this statement, and I'm sure any other serving member of a military would be as well.
"waste a year of their life, trudging around in the mud, doing mundane pointless tasks playing an adult version of boyscouts out of some misconceived perception that it will actually benefit society through "improved physical fitness and mental discipline""
^^ I'm a member of the Royal Canadian Navy. I've successfully completed Basic Training. It took 14 weeks. I believe everyone would benefit from taking this training. It's not an adult version of boy scouts, nor is it a bunch of crawling around in the mud. We do not mindlessly follow orders. We're trained to think rationally for ourselves, and only in very extreme cases would we be ordered into harms way, or to kill someone.
Your misguided, ignorant view of what military's do seems like it's based on what you see in movies, specifically American military movies. You mention conscription based armies ar part of an archaic western society? I'm sure you've heard of South Korea since you're here on TL.
I understand this is the internet and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they generally choose to have very extreme opinions since there's no accountability for what they say, but your gross generalization of military members is a bit much.
I'm from Canada. We're not forced to join, and we rarely speak out against other countries, but I'll be god damned if someone's gonna shit all over the forces and say we're a bunch of adult boy scouts.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Discipline benefits us all. Without it, we're just a bunch of lazy fucks. Some people are born with it, others need to learn it, some never do.
Eh?
There is discipline and than there is military discipline. The latter is not a positive value.
I was lazy as hell in high school, I had talent for learning but didnt bother to put in the effort. 1 month into military training I wondered how the hell I could ever thought school was "hard". High school is life on easy mode compared to military service.
Now I am PhD in microbiology and I give my military training a lot of credit for that. It gives you perspective and discipline.
I watched many people that was at least around my level dropping out of University before completing a bachelor cause they couldn't focus on the task given to them.
And I know (second hand) people that went to military training and are terrible and lazy bums. But also I saw people lazy as hell in high school that had terrible grades that are now working as top specialists in many different fields and neither of them went through military training. All of them just grew up, funny how that process actually happens without any military training. Some do, some don't , some do later. Personal anecdotes and introspection are terrible basis for public policy. Personal anecdotes mean nothing and introspection is about as unreliable as it goes considering how people consistently lie to themselves and are unable to uncover their actual motivations. Which is not surprising considering those decisions and motives are well hidden from consciousness we are just post factum creating conscious rationalizations. How do you actually know that without that military training you would not be in the same position ? Due to post factum rationalization.
Of course I dont know that it made a difference but then you could make that argument about almost anything. Maybe it did´nt change me although I feel it did. About it being a waste of time though, it is actually not possible for anyone to say that. It is my opinion in the matter that decides if it is a waste or not, since it is my life to live.
I have never had any experience before or after that have been even remotely similar and I don´t expect that I will ever will have again. As consequence it is also the year which I can recall most memories from as it is so different from any other year in my life.
To get on topic again, it might be important to note that I did military service voluntarily. I think the mind set which you approach the military service is crucial in deciding if it is a useful experience or not. Which in turn becomes an argument against mandatory service. But in a position like Israel, Taiwan or SK it does make sense to have it regardless imo.
I can easily say that military service would be waste of time for me. All statements about waste of time are related to a person saying it. Other than that you have only percentages of people that consider it waste of time and those who don't. As you say this whole thing is more an argument against mandatory service.
And of course I mean countries in our geopolitical circumstances. Israel or SK are in different boat.
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
Mandatory one year ? That's insane.
Why is that insane?
On April 03 2013 07:26 Glurkenspurk wrote:
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
I'm a pacifist. I refuse to blindly take killing orders from old white people so I can gain some sort of bullshit "mental discipline."
I'd rather spend time in a prison cell than ever do anything to support or work for the military. Forcing me into it isn't going to change that.
Who said anything about killing orders? You think military training involves murder?
On April 03 2013 07:27 Acritter wrote:
On April 03 2013 07:05 Reason wrote: I think every citizen should be forced to spend 1 year in military training with no strings attached.
Mental discipline and physical fitness are always going to benefit a population.
These people cannot be conscripted, you just hopefully have a nation of more productive and united citizens.
I would assume a greater number of people would decide to continue in the military after having experienced it too, and also those who decide otherwise can change their minds if the country is ever in dire need.
I'd suggest after finishing high school/formal education and immediately before college/university would be a good time to do this.
I'd rather it be some kind of public service that may or may not be military. I still think only volunteers should go to the front lines (outside of some incomparable crisis, which hasn't happened in a long time for first-world countries), but public service would help break down social barriers and form a more united public.
We don't need more soldiers, but we certainly need more public good. For the US, at least.
I agree, only those who want to go to the front lines should go, that's what I posted. Public service could be a regular activity in the process also.
There seems to be a degree of confusion over my suggestion.
Military training does not involve killing people or going to the front lines =/
Military training however is a complete waste of time within the modern society. You are advocating that everyone should be forced to waste a year of their life, trudging around in the mud, doing mundane pointless tasks playing an adult version of boyscouts out of some misconceived perception that it will actually benefit society through "improved physical fitness and mental discipline" (whatever mental discipline is supposed to mean? Mindlessly following orders?). Society will benefit more from having everyone take an extra year of education than crawling in mud and generally people do not like being forced to do stuff. The conscription-based army is an archaic institution in the western part of the world which can really only be abolished too late.
I'm pretty much insulted by this statement, and I'm sure any other serving member of a military would be as well.
"waste a year of their life, trudging around in the mud, doing mundane pointless tasks playing an adult version of boyscouts out of some misconceived perception that it will actually benefit society through "improved physical fitness and mental discipline""
^^ I'm a member of the Royal Canadian Navy. I've successfully completed Basic Training. It took 14 weeks. I believe everyone would benefit from taking this training. It's not an adult version of boy scouts, nor is it a bunch of crawling around in the mud. We do not mindlessly follow orders. We're trained to think rationally for ourselves, and only in very extreme cases would we be ordered into harms way, or to kill someone.
Your misguided, ignorant view of what military's do seems like it's based on what you see in movies, specifically American military movies. You mention conscription based armies ar part of an archaic western society? I'm sure you've heard of South Korea since you're here on TL.
I understand this is the internet and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they generally choose to have very extreme opinions since there's no accountability for what they say, but your gross generalization of military members is a bit much.
I'm from Canada. We're not forced to join, and we rarely speak out against other countries, but I'll be god damned if someone's gonna shit all over the forces and say we're a bunch of adult boy scouts.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Discipline benefits us all. Without it, we're just a bunch of lazy fucks. Some people are born with it, others need to learn it, some never do.
Eh?
There is discipline and than there is military discipline. The latter is not a positive value.
I was lazy as hell in high school, I had talent for learning but didnt bother to put in the effort. 1 month into military training I wondered how the hell I could ever thought school was "hard". High school is life on easy mode compared to military service.
Now I am PhD in microbiology and I give my military training a lot of credit for that. It gives you perspective and discipline.
I watched many people that was at least around my level dropping out of University before completing a bachelor cause they couldn't focus on the task given to them.
Most People don't need go through some kind of military discipline to get through their studies. I wouldn't generalize your case.
I agree with my fellow tl-er who wrote that if the country has any reasonable chance of being attacked, then mandatory service is probably the way to go. Otherwise, a professional army seems a lot more productive.
There are a lot of misunderstandings regarding what military discipline really entails. It's perceived as some sort of dystopian machine that grinds down your personality and independent thought, but what it really is is just a workplace with a stricter sense of hierarchy, and more guns.
It's probably one the most misinterpreted professions out there.
On April 03 2013 12:57 TJ31 wrote: Like I posted already, 2 good friends of mine consider 1 year in the military as a complete and unpleasant waste of time.
Having served alongside people who considered it a waste of time, I can say it's usually a disposition not gained from the active service, but one they had from the beginning. It's a waste of time if you're not willing to make it anything more.
The same can be said about any other hobby/profession. What if we are to force everyone to take 2 years of programming courses because being a programmer is useful nowadays?
Finland can't afford a professional army, so I feel you don't have much of a point there.
Much poorer countries can afford it easily, so no, he has a point.
And how many of those countries have a 1324km border with Russia? It's been well studied in Finland that a mandatory enlistment is the only way (other than NATO membership) to uphold a "credible defence", which is the official finnish defence doctrine.
It's not about winning a war, it's not about stopping an attack. It's about making sure the attacking nation takes so much damage it's not worth it. People here seem to believe it doesn't matter how many men you have because technology decides who wins. That's completely wrong.
I don't, manpower and technology both influence the outcome. But assuming the war with Russia is the issue I have with Finnish doctrine. That assumes some very different international circumstances. And alone you cannot make it not worth it (apart from developing nukes). Your whole doctrine seems to exist just to perpetuate the current state, which the army quite likely supports as they get more money and power.
War with Russia is not the Finnish doctrine by any means. It's based on a scenario of a world wide or region wide conflict, that Russia is part of. When Finland has a credible army, Russia is not going to push us around and demand more territory to protect for example st. petersburg. And because Finland isn't the main enemy of Russia in that sort of conflict and Finland has a large army, Russia has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by attacking/invading/trying to move troops through Finland.
Maybe not perfectly explained because i'm doing 1000 things at the same time, but trust me on this one :D
I think that this is a very good way to keep the army in the peoples hands. If the recruits are not drafted from all the poulation but if everyone is hired, it is basically a mercenary army and it will more easily shoot and kill its own people if the government or the people who pay them order them to do it.
I don't think a draft is a good idea for obvious reasons (generally people don't like to be forced to do something they don't want to do, especially when it could be risking their life), however I think a good solution for this problem would be to make joining the military enticing enough to wear the benefits are worth joining so enough people volunteer (basically what the US & some other countries do).
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included.
Not really. Not like it's a torture center or something, especially in civil countries. Plus there's multiple ways to cheat (like "being sick" and waste some time in the hospital reading books). My 2 friends didn't changed much after that 1 year. Only thing that changed in 1 year for my friends who served is... now they don't like our government even more. No other changes, they are still good old slackers I know since I was a kid. Yeah, they lost some weight there, but it didn't took too long to get some back.
On April 03 2013 14:23 EngrishTeacher wrote: I'm all for a mandatory enlistment time of no longer than 1 year for both sexes.
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included.
Agreed, partly the reason why mandatory service can be a good thing. It's honestly what you make of the experience (which is true for pretty much everything else too). It's important to maintain a sense of civic duty, and even more important to keep the civilian-military relationship as strong as possible, because that will only leave the country better off.
Also, isn't the answer to OP obvious? If you live in a country with a high threat of invasion (ie israel or south korea), it only makes sense to have mandatory service for people in those places. Generalizing mandatory service to be "bad" is pretty ignorant, and that unfortunately seems to be the attitude a lot of people in the thread seem to have. If your country isn't located in a dangerous place and has mandatory service, that is a debate that you should be having with others in your country.
Mandatory service can lead to just a few things in my opinion. A cheating and corruption. People who don't want to serve seeking every possible ways to avoid it. I know, I did the same. You can bribe a doctor, you can bribe people in universities, you can bribe someone from military as well.
Actually these days in my country, only people who are getting drafted are: Dumbasses like my friends, who didn't planned stuff when they had time. Poor people who can't afford a bribe of 5-8k$. People who actually want to serve.
That's it, no one else is going to army here. In fact it's that bad, so there even were thoughts about making those bribes legal. I mean, a man who don't want to go to army no matter what should pay some money to government and that's it, he's free. It was a while ago though.
I should also add, that because it's still mandatory here, most of civilians hate the army. Mothers hate it because they are taking their sons. Young women hate it because they take their bfs/husbands. And ofc those who are getting drafted against their will hate it more than anyone. In whole my life I didn't met a single person who weren't in military himself and liked military. So I'm not sure about which civilian-military relationship you're talking about.
Well clearly people in your country are immoral and faithless, as well as having an inept government (officials shouldnt be taking bribes). I dont know what country you are from but your suggestion that mandatory service will automatically lead to corruption makes no sense. Uh what?
And no one is claiming that one years' worth of service is going to turn every young man into rambo with the discipline of a monk. I'm just saying that there are merits to military service and the people just whining about it instead of trying to see the positives about it just come across as angsty teenagers. I could understand if you live in a country with little potential for conflict with neighbors, but if my country was in constant threat of invasion or potential war, I wouldnt be angry.
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included.
Not really. Not like it's a torture center or something, especially in civil countries. Plus there's multiple ways to cheat (like "being sick" and waste some time in the hospital reading books). My 2 friends didn't changed much after that 1 year. Only thing that changed in 1 year for my friends who served is... now they don't like our government even more. No other changes, they are still good old slackers I know since I was a kid. Yeah, they lost some weight there, but it didn't took too long to get some back.
On April 03 2013 15:15 white_horse wrote:
On April 03 2013 14:23 EngrishTeacher wrote: I'm all for a mandatory enlistment time of no longer than 1 year for both sexes.
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included.
Agreed, partly the reason why mandatory service can be a good thing. It's honestly what you make of the experience (which is true for pretty much everything else too). It's important to maintain a sense of civic duty, and even more important to keep the civilian-military relationship as strong as possible, because that will only leave the country better off.
Also, isn't the answer to OP obvious? If you live in a country with a high threat of invasion (ie israel or south korea), it only makes sense to have mandatory service for people in those places. Generalizing mandatory service to be "bad" is pretty ignorant, and that unfortunately seems to be the attitude a lot of people in the thread seem to have. If your country isn't located in a dangerous place and has mandatory service, that is a debate that you should be having with others in your country.
Mandatory service can lead to just a few things in my opinion. A cheating and corruption. People who don't want to serve seeking every possible ways to avoid it. I know, I did the same. You can bribe a doctor, you can bribe people in universities, you can bribe someone from military as well.
Actually these days in my country, only people who are getting drafted are: Dumbasses like my friends, who didn't planned stuff when they had time. Poor people who can't afford a bribe of 5-8k$. People who actually want to serve.
That's it, no one else is going to army here. In fact it's that bad, so there even were thoughts about making those bribes legal. I mean, a man who don't want to go to army no matter what should pay some money to government and that's it, he's free. It was a while ago though.
I should also add, that because it's still mandatory here, most of civilians hate the army. Mothers hate it because they are taking their sons. Young women hate it because they take their bfs/husbands. And ofc those who are getting drafted against their will hate it more than anyone. In whole my life I didn't met a single person who weren't in military himself and liked military. So I'm not sure about which civilian-military relationship you're talking about.
Well clearly people in your country are immoral and faithless, as well as having an inept government (officials shouldnt be taking bribes). I dont know what country you are from but your suggestion that mandatory service will automatically lead to corruption makes no sense. Uh what?
And no one is claiming that one years' worth of service is going to turn every young man into rambo with the discipline of a monk. I'm just saying that there are merits to military service and the people just whining about it instead of trying to see the positives about it just come across as angsty teenagers. I could understand if you live in a country with little potential for conflict with neighbors, but if my country was in constant threat of invasion or potential war, I wouldnt be angry.
Yes, maybe they are. Too much has happened in my country for the last ~20 years, so most of people lost faith in it. Country is... the one with vodka, bears and nukes. As for the bribes... It happens everywhere, even in China where the sentence for it is death. It happens in Europe, in USA, everywhere.
And yes, it does lead to corruption. I already explained why. People who don't want to lose 1 year of their life for nonthing (let's not argue about that again, from their/my point of view it IS for nothing) willing to spend some money. And just like everywhere, if someone's willing to spend cash, there is something who will gladly take it. In the essence it's like buying 1 year for your life. I'm sure a lot of older guys would've paid much more to get 1 more year.
Also I believe people must be able to choose what they want to do with their lifes/time, not someone else. Students don't get drafted, so they can finish university in peace. But after they do, instead of going to some job and getting some practice, they must spend 1 year for something they don't need/want to do. It's whole year man, whole year. Actually it used to be 2 about 6-7 years ago, but they reduced it. Imagine how much money can you make for a year, how many stuff you can try etc. Instead you would be counting days to get home, getting no money and thinking if your gf (if you had one) still waiting for you or not. Well, it's all about same things over and over again, so I'll stop now.
And the last, but not least. I still don't believe 99.9% of countries need an army of civilians these days. Professionals should be just fine. In small local conflicts there's no need for a man power, vs terrorists army can't do much too. And if something big will happen, like WW3 (I sure hope it won't happen), it will be all about nukes this time. Nukes and high tech vehicles.
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included.
Not really. Not like it's a torture center or something, especially in civil countries. Plus there's multiple ways to cheat (like "being sick" and waste some time in the hospital reading books). My 2 friends didn't changed much after that 1 year. Only thing that changed in 1 year for my friends who served is... now they don't like our government even more. No other changes, they are still good old slackers I know since I was a kid. Yeah, they lost some weight there, but it didn't took too long to get some back.
On April 03 2013 15:15 white_horse wrote:
On April 03 2013 14:23 EngrishTeacher wrote: I'm all for a mandatory enlistment time of no longer than 1 year for both sexes.
At worst, a year of service will beat the living shit out of every ounce of laziness out of you, make you a LOT more fit, and probably get you into the habbit of following a good routine.
Totally needed for today's young people, myself included.
Agreed, partly the reason why mandatory service can be a good thing. It's honestly what you make of the experience (which is true for pretty much everything else too). It's important to maintain a sense of civic duty, and even more important to keep the civilian-military relationship as strong as possible, because that will only leave the country better off.
Also, isn't the answer to OP obvious? If you live in a country with a high threat of invasion (ie israel or south korea), it only makes sense to have mandatory service for people in those places. Generalizing mandatory service to be "bad" is pretty ignorant, and that unfortunately seems to be the attitude a lot of people in the thread seem to have. If your country isn't located in a dangerous place and has mandatory service, that is a debate that you should be having with others in your country.
Mandatory service can lead to just a few things in my opinion. A cheating and corruption. People who don't want to serve seeking every possible ways to avoid it. I know, I did the same. You can bribe a doctor, you can bribe people in universities, you can bribe someone from military as well.
Actually these days in my country, only people who are getting drafted are: Dumbasses like my friends, who didn't planned stuff when they had time. Poor people who can't afford a bribe of 5-8k$. People who actually want to serve.
That's it, no one else is going to army here. In fact it's that bad, so there even were thoughts about making those bribes legal. I mean, a man who don't want to go to army no matter what should pay some money to government and that's it, he's free. It was a while ago though.
I should also add, that because it's still mandatory here, most of civilians hate the army. Mothers hate it because they are taking their sons. Young women hate it because they take their bfs/husbands. And ofc those who are getting drafted against their will hate it more than anyone. In whole my life I didn't met a single person who weren't in military himself and liked military. So I'm not sure about which civilian-military relationship you're talking about.
Well clearly people in your country are immoral and faithless, as well as having an inept government (officials shouldnt be taking bribes). I dont know what country you are from but your suggestion that mandatory service will automatically lead to corruption makes no sense. Uh what?
And no one is claiming that one years' worth of service is going to turn every young man into rambo with the discipline of a monk. I'm just saying that there are merits to military service and the people just whining about it instead of trying to see the positives about it just come across as angsty teenagers. I could understand if you live in a country with little potential for conflict with neighbors, but if my country was in constant threat of invasion or potential war, I wouldnt be angry.
Yes, maybe they are. Too much has happened in my country for the last ~20 years, so most of people lost faith in it. Country is... the one with vodka, bears and nukes. As for the bribes... It happens everywhere, even in China where the sentence for it is death. It happens in Europe, in USA, everywhere.
And yes, it does lead to corruption. I already explained why. People who don't want to lose 1 year of their life for nonthing (let's not argue about that again, from their/my point of view it IS for nothing) willing to spend some money. And just like everywhere, if someone's willing to spend cash, there is something who will gladly take it. In the essence it's like buying 1 year for your life. I'm sure a lot of older guys would've paid much more to get 1 more year.
Also I believe people must be able to choose what they want to do with their lifes/time, not someone else. Students don't get drafted, so they can finish university in peace. But after they do, instead of going to some job and getting some practice, they must spend 1 year for something they don't need/want to do. It's whole year man, whole year. Actually it used to be 2 about 6-7 years ago, but they reduced it. Imagine how much money can you make for a year, how many stuff you can try etc. Instead you would be counting days to get home, getting no money and thinking if your gf (if you had one) still waiting for you or not. Well, it's all about same things over and over again, so I'll stop now.
And the last, but not least. I still don't believe 99.9% of countries need an army of civilians these days. Professionals should be just fine. In small local conflicts there's no need for a man power, vs terrorists army can't do much too. And if something big will happen, like WW3 (I sure hope it won't happen), it will be all about nukes this time. Nukes and high tech vehicles.
Not that I disagree with you (I don't for the most part)
But... "Nukes and high tech vehicles" is a great oversimplification of war and will lead to a quick defeat both militarily and morally.
Unless you hit them when they aren't looking both sides will know the relative strength of the other and not bother to hit where each is strongest. War is not a gentleman's agreement and a lot of it will come down to lateral strategies and tactics. This requires an army that have enough flexibility to be able to do everything.
Now, I don't think pitching tents in the woods for a year will do that--nor do I think boot camp will do that. I do think integrating aspects of it into schools would be an clean way to ensure that when the army needs volunteers--that those volunteers be physically ready for boot camp.
Imo, Today, we know what wars really are, at least most of the time. Countries should have defensive militias that (could require all able-bodied women/men) to participate in in the time of war/emergency (strictly self defense or defense of allies).
Whether you agree or not with mandatory military service is your own opinion, so thats fine. But don't generalize mandatory service as a bad thing just because you have anecdotal experience or the conscription system in your country sucks. I can understand if your country has peaceful neighbors and conscription is some old remnant of the cold war or something. But some countries really do need it, and for those places, it's really important to have a civilian base that can immediately transition into a military force. It isn't a "waste of time" when you are participating in the defense of your own country, especially if its a country that has a potential to be attacked. I suppose having a country to call home and a citizenship is taken for granted too? People talk about how the world is "globalized" and "we have too much to lose" etc etc but if you break the actions down of countries to the very core, everyone is ultimately acting in their own interest. That doesn't change no matter how "globalized" the world gets. And if someone wants to destroy your country because its in their own interest, you better hope to be well equipped.
On April 02 2013 22:57 LaNague wrote: its useless.
modern warfare is not about masses of infantry anymore, there is no need for a massive standing army unless you border countries like north korea.
If 90% of a nations male citizens (18-64yo), have some kind of basic military training, its a nightmare from a potential occupiers perspective; Everyone is a potential freedom fighter. I wouldn't say its any more useless now than it used to be.
This is when infinite amounts of Chemical weapons and napalm are used, while the local soldiers are used as fodder. See Vietnam War. Very effective.
On April 02 2013 06:48 Hookster wrote: "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, it is still mandatory in Finland to do the service. The presumption is that you do the military service, you have appeal to your "moral" or "ethical" views to do the civil service. Even though you meet a lot dumb people in the service, it is still an universal experience for the men in the nation. It does not matter if you are a son of a CEO or a blue-collar working man, you still do the service and there's no way out of it. It is also a fun experience to be just a part of the machine and nobody giving a damn about your individual views. And in the times of equality, especially in the Nordic nations, women should also do the service. It is not so though.
Of course, Finland has a quite unique situation in Europe with a lot of border with Russia. History tells that the threat has always come from the east. The military defensive doctrine in Finland is that we make the possible attack by Russia so expensive for them so it is not worthwhile. We need the +200,000 men armed with assault rifles and RPGs to make the invasion extremely difficult.
The idea that "world is not so crazy anymore" is just wishful thinking. They also thought that after WW1 because it was the bloodiest so far. You will always get new crazy people in the world who are in charge and decide to go on a rampage. Usually there is a war going on somewhere in the world. Now the prime example is Syria.
And lastly here's a small video by a Finnish sketch group:
Syria isn't Europe. But yes, the Finnish situation, just like the Israeli situation, do have very strong arguments for mandatory military service. The same cannot be said for most first world countries though.
Even in Sweden (which shares the same threat of a potential looming Russian invasion, albeit one country over) we dropped mandatory military service a good while ago. Our military is only meant to slow down an invasion, not actually stop it. We couldn't fight a Russian invasion off however hard we tried. So we delay, and wait for aid. And that's what our very small military is for these days. That, and international peace keeping efforts. And I'm more than fine with that. If the potential threats towards Sweden increases for some reason in the future then sure, ramp up mandatory military service again. There's a plan to get Sweden ready for war (the more time we have the more combat ready we will be) - but as it is we're not really under threat from anyone and pretending we are would just create potential mistrust issues with our neighbours and, perhaps more likely, waste a lot of money and people's time.
Man, you guys are almost as bad as Cold War USA when it comes to conspiracy theories about Russian invasion. I'm 100% sure the Russians have absolutely no intent of such a thing. The Vikings are long gone, so you're right about not being able to put up a fight. If in fact the Russians were as conquest-happy as you seem to imply, Stockholm would be a stock pile of spent Russian munitions while I'm having my morning tea tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, the Russians have no such intent of doing such a thing, nor would it bring them any value at all...
Not sure what you are trying to exemplify here, you lost the war.
On April 04 2013 05:56 white_horse wrote: Whether you agree or not with mandatory military service is your own opinion, so thats fine. But don't generalize mandatory service as a bad thing just because you have anecdotal experience or the conscription system in your country sucks. I can understand if your country has peaceful neighbors and conscription is some old remnant of the cold war or something. But some countries really do need it, and for those places, it's really important to have a civilian base that can immediately transition into a military force. It isn't a "waste of time" when you are participating in the defense of your own country, especially if its a country that has a potential to be attacked. I suppose having a country to call home and a citizenship is taken for granted too? People talk about how the world is "globalized" and "we have too much to lose" etc etc but if you break the actions down of countries to the very core, everyone is ultimately acting in their own interest. That doesn't change no matter how "globalized" the world gets. And if someone wants to destroy your country because its in their own interest, you better hope to be well equipped.
That once again relies on the idea that forcing people in to obligatory military orgnisations also means they'll fight when you demand they do, and also relies on the idea that by birth right the country owns that person for at least some period of their life. Neither of those are right.
I know it's different when I like in the UK and I'm not at any threat of a neighbour, but say hypothetically there was some threat of France attacking the country - I would neither agree to training, nor would I fight when it was demanded of me. If I really felt that I personally had something to protect from doing so then fair enough, at which point you don't need to force me to do anything anyway. There isn't a country in this world I would fight for right now though.
The point is always that it is better to ensure adequate information and adequate social protection and opportunity for those who do elect to get training as for those who don't, not simply forcing everyone to get training in case you want them to fight on your behalf. If the threat is real, and the status quo worth fighting for (or the alternative worth fighting against) you will have no trouble finding volunteers who're ready to get training and want to be able to fight should the need arise. Forcing everyone else to do so achieves nothing good.
On April 04 2013 01:11 Holy_AT wrote: Is Mandatory Military Enlistment still needed ?
I think that this is a very good way to keep the army in the peoples hands. If the recruits are not drafted from all the poulation but if everyone is hired, it is basically a mercenary army and it will more easily shoot and kill its own people if the government or the people who pay them order them to do it.
Well that is quite a stretch! I do not see voluntary people from a country being that much more prone to genocide than randomly selected people. One could even argue that the lack of moral from having people who hate being there might make the opposite just as likely. I guess there is a point if the country in question is a very corrupt dictatorship like Algeria or Lebanon, but in democracies I highly doubt the relevance of this argument.
On April 04 2013 01:39 kmillz wrote: I don't think a draft is a good idea for obvious reasons (generally people don't like to be forced to do something they don't want to do, especially when it could be risking their life), however I think a good solution for this problem would be to make joining the military enticing enough to wear the benefits are worth joining so enough people volunteer (basically what the US & some other countries do).
That is exactly how things changed from everyone getting draftet in 2001 to nobody getting involuntarily chosen a few years later in Denmark (That and 1983 being the smallest year in terms of births for many many years). The danish army has had the problem of far too many volunteers for years now because of their improvements in marketing and a focus on making the skills learned in the army worth something in civil life and incorporating civil skills into the army! May I add, though, that safety is highly rated in training situations and few get permanent scars from their conscription duty today so conscripts are not risking their lifes and conscripts can choose not to join international service most places so danger is a weak argument in most cases! Most of the involuntary people will enter a reserve and only enter into the army in times of direct war. That is rather seldom for most countries where a standing army of voluntary professional soldiers is far more common. It has never happened in Denmark since 1948 when it was added to the constitution.
Keeping conscription in Europe seems archaic and wasteful given its alternative. The only true fear from removing it is the possible lack of volunteers in the future. How things work in africa, asia and the americas is a completely different story. There is a map of conscription in the world here. Note that Denmark is directly responsible for the protection of Greenland and partly responsible for Iceland if a war should occur since none of these countries have any standing armies.
Absolutely not. The draft is a massive infringement on civil liberties and tantamount to slavery. In the context where a draft is "necessary" to defeat some kind of totalitarian monster most people would sign up anyway. The volunteer rate was *explosive* in the first and second world wars and those werent wars [in the case of the americas] about our liberties but about the liberties of other nations.
During times of war, I think conscription is totally fine. During the World Wars, military service started out as voluntary in Canada, but later conscription was instituted once numbers of volunteers started falling.
For myself personally, I have no plans to enter into our Canadian Military. That being said, if Canada was ever invaded, or our nation under direct threat, I would have no issue signing up. In times of war I think conscription is totally acceptable, and probably a good thing, but during times of peace (I consider now to be a time of peace for most nations in the world) I think it's kind of outdated. There may be minor conflicts here and there, but for the most part (of course there's always exceptions) no nation really needs a massive, war-ready military.
On April 04 2013 06:17 BradenKuntz wrote: During times of war, I think conscription is totally fine. During the World Wars, military service started out as voluntary in Canada, but later conscription was instituted once numbers of volunteers started falling.
For myself personally, I have no plans to enter into our Canadian Military. That being said, if Canada was ever invaded, or our nation under direct threat, I would have no issue signing up. In times of war I think conscription is totally acceptable, and probably a good thing, but during times of peace (I consider now to be a time of peace for most nations in the world) I think it's kind of outdated. There may be minor conflicts here and there, but for the most part (of course there's always exceptions) no nation really needs a massive, war-ready military.
What if canada was hypothetically surrounded by handful of bigger countries that basically hate you for past occurances or religious views? Would you still not want your country to have a _war-ready military_
On April 04 2013 06:17 BradenKuntz wrote: During times of war, I think conscription is totally fine. During the World Wars, military service started out as voluntary in Canada, but later conscription was instituted once numbers of volunteers started falling.
For myself personally, I have no plans to enter into our Canadian Military. That being said, if Canada was ever invaded, or our nation under direct threat, I would have no issue signing up. In times of war I think conscription is totally acceptable, and probably a good thing, but during times of peace (I consider now to be a time of peace for most nations in the world) I think it's kind of outdated. There may be minor conflicts here and there, but for the most part (of course there's always exceptions) no nation really needs a massive, war-ready military.
What if canada was hypothetically surrounded by handful of bigger countries that basically hate you for past occurances or religious views? Would you still not want your country to have a _war-ready military_
Then why wouldnt Canada have high volunteers in response to that? Religious objections? Ideological opposition, or even sympathy with our enemy? Those seem entirely valid grounds to avoid association with the organized military. It doesnt matter the consequences, if people dont want to be associated with the military its immoral and undefendable to violate their liberties and conscience, in order to make them do so.
EPT
