Is Mandatory Military Enlistment still needed? - Page 12

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but during times of peace (I consider now to be a time of peace for most nations in the world) I think it's kind of outdated.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.

On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm amazed at how negatively most people have responded to the concept of spending 1 year in the military considering (here in the UK at least) we have 13 years of compulsory public education with questionable benefits to say the least.

I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.

On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.

On April 04 2013 04:25 TJ31 wrote:


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.

On April 05 2013 00:14 Reason wrote:
I'm amazed at how negatively most people have responded to the concept of spending 1 year in the military considering (here in the UK at least) we have 13 years of compulsory public education with questionable benefits to say the least.

I'm thinking of the military training essentially as a 1 year physical and mental fitness and team building exercise but apparently that's the most horrific thing most of you could ever imagine.

On April 05 2013 00:23 DreamChaser wrote:


Exactly, thats how your thinking of it is. It sounds all good if you think of it like that just a year of exercise and some team building.

One other question i have for people is who is gonna pay this? (I will use the US as an example as thats my own country) People already complain about the defense budget and just recently they (attempted?) to revoke the tuition assistance for military education. The US as everyone knows is already having financial problems, it would seem to me trying to train every able bodied male and female between 18-25(?) would just cause more problems.

But for health reasons (Read obesity) i would actually say that the US needs it more than most countries.

To prevent the executive power from being able to oppress, it is requisite, that the armies, with which it is intrusted, should consist of` the people, and have the same spirit as the people, as was the case at Rome, till the time of Marius. To obtain this end, there are only two ways, either that the persons employed in the army, should have sufficient property to answer for their conduct to their fellow subjects, and be enlisted only for a year, as customary at Rome: Or if there should be a standing army, composed chiefly of the most despicable part of the nation, the legislative power should have a right to disband them as soon as it pleased; the soldiers should live in common with the rest of the people; and no separate camp, barracks, or fortress, should be suffered .

When once an army is established, it ought not to depend immediately on the legislative, but on the executive power, and this from the very nature of` the thing; its business consisting more in action than in deliberation.

From a manner of thinking that prevails amongst mankind, they set a higher value upon courage than timorousness, on activity than prudence, on strength than counsel. Hence, the army will ever despise a senate, and respect their own officers. I hey will naturally slight the orders sent them by a body of` men, whom they look upon as cowards, and therefore unworthy to command them. So that as soon as the army depends on the legislative body, the government becomes a military one; and if the contrary has ever happened, it has been owing to some extraordinary circumstances. It is because the army was always kept divided; it is because it was composed of several bodies, that depended each on their particular province; it is because the capital towns were strong places, defended by their natural situation, and not garrisoned with regular troops. Holland, for instance, is still safer than Venice; she might drown, or starve the revolted troops; for as they are not quartered in towns capable of furnishing them with necessary subsistence, this subsistence is of course precarious.

On April 05 2013 00:33 Iyerbeth wrote:


If we were discussing a year of physical education classes in a boarding school my objections would be different to those presented here. It is however not 1 year of physical and mental fitness (whatever mental fitness is meant to be in this regard) with team building exercises.

It is 1 year forced in to a military organisation with the understanding that the country owns you and you will be ready to fight later when they demand it of you. It's 1 year of your adult life learning nothing useful, falling behind on what you could have achieved, doing stuff you don't want to do, with people you don't want to be with, in an organisation where serious ethical questions apply under a system which is completely immoral in application.

Edit: I'm not saying people can't get something out of the year though, that's not the objection. Those who want to get something out of it, get training, or spend a year doing that stuff etc should have the opportunity to. The task should be to ensure that they don't fall behind in terms of career and life opportunities compared to those who don't want to do that.

On April 05 2013 02:05 Reason wrote:

I've specifically stated, repeatedly, there's absolutely no expectation to fight later and they cannot demand anything of you but nobody pays any attention it would seem.

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.

On April 05 2013 02:12 Reason wrote:

If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you.

On April 05 2013 02:21 Iyerbeth wrote:


If you'd read the thread you will have seen (aswell as my contributing throughout) there are many people pointing out one of the main reasons brought up in support of forced military service is that it means in a country where a potential threat lies on the border that you will have a force already trained. It's been made repeatedly. I'm quite aware that most countries don't yet have a forced conscription also (wait until a war happens, I wonder what they'll do with the trained and not fighting...) but that doesn't in any way address the additional concerns, nor the fact that it is still clearly training to prepare you to fight in future.

Amusingly the quote from yourself, you also include the point where people can fight "if the country is ever in dire need". The expectation is that you will fight, even if the requirement isn't there, as I've said repeatedly.

The arguements about it providing a better society have yet to have any substance behind them, and you have failed to answer the other points raised.

On April 05 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Its easy to not want conscription if you're country is not being actively invaded. (I'm not talking about threatened, I'm talking about being actively invaded)

If you're country is invaded people are forced into the choice of surrender or fight. But without that outside force conscription feels (to them) like forcing peaceful people to fight wars for you.

They're not wrong (I'm not certain they're right, although I do see myself as one of them), but it's hard if it's kept as a separate thing from society.

If it was integrated into our everyday life, people would be less philosophically against it. But most conscription literally pull you away from everyday life for training. It's that pulling away that is jarring to people. If all of a sudden the government said "PE should be harder, for better health" people would be like "cool"

That fact that stronger emphasis on physical education helps the military would just be a bonus.

If the government said "we'd like to fund our rocket science programs for space flight" people would be like "cool, more funding for space!" and the fact that it would help with missile technology for the military would be a bonus.

If the military experience pulls people away from society--they will hate it. If the programs enriched society and the military at the same time--everyone wins.