Military issues, either as defense or offense, is a basic fact that many countries and states face, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
As a result, some countries have made mandatory military service, often called conscription and often held during one's (usually males) college years. Some other have historical basis for implementing mandatory military service, and the policy dates back years, decades, and in some cases even centuries. In China, due to its highly political and military history in the formation of its country through different warring states, conscription continues today starting from circa 220 BC. Other countries in similar predisposition are Russia, many North African countries, and Asian countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.
Others, despite similar historical background, manage to have more flexible conscription policies. In the UK, conscription laws have only been in force in the periods during the two World Wars. Other countries, especially European ones, have seemed to follow this same pattern as well.
There are also a lot of issues confronting forced military enlistment. Chief among them are personal and philosophical beliefs. Other groups and individuals affiliated to such groups violently opposed this policy because it goes against their basic tenet of peace and harmony with others. Most notable are some pacifist groups, religious groups, and Jehovah's Witness, whose main belief is not pledge allegiance to nation but to the brotherhood of men. There are also massive gender issues with this policy, noting how only male are subject to it.
What do you think TL? Is there still a need for any country to mandate forced military enlistment?
Er...by China do you mean Taiwan? I'm pretty sure Mainland China doesn't have mandatory military service. In fact, citizens from HK and Macau are apparently forbidden to join the military.
It should be just like you described it in the UK. If a country is endangered, it should have Mandatory Millitary Service (Korea). In Germany the MMS was put on a hold (cant get rid of it completely because its in our Constitution) and I think that was a good decision.
I personally think the system is outdated, to say the least, but making it male-only is kind of silly in this day and age. Excuse my Y chromosomes for not wanting to be wrapped in a body bag.
Only male is a an American distinction. There are countries like Israel that require service by both. I don't think mandatory military service is necessary,however 2 years of service to your country not required to be military would be a decent idea, and is something that I would vote for in the United States.
Also in times of crisis like WWII there really aren't all that many alternatives to conscription.
Considering how the draft was received during the vietnam war here in the US, I can't imagine how it would be received in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not it's necessary, I think the outcry would be too great. I can't speak for other countries though.
Drafts usually don't end well, but I can see why forced service even during peace time can be a good thing. A lot of people are total losers, and I doubt some military discipline will hurt them.
As someone in the military, I don't like it. I already have to deal with enough people who don't want to be in the military who are lazy and suck at their jobs because of it, I don't want to deal with more of them.
In my country men can decide between mandatory civil service or military service. Women can do their military service but its voluntary and any religious groups are free to do whatever they please.
-At the moment it kind of feels like the only way to sustain a military at all, if we had any other system we would be unable to defend against any military threat. But I am no expert, maybe we could just try the switzerland strategy and be neutral no matter what happens.
I wouldn't explicitly call the current Chinese system conscription. When I lived there the "training," most students underwent was standing in a hot field marching and figuring out ways to dress up their GI uniforms, participation in that training was however mandatory. I am fuzzy on the details on this so I could be off on the specifics, I just thought it was amusing to see wealthy Chinese girls try and make a uniform fashionable. It was very GI Jane
If you compare it to Korea or Isreal where service is an extended duration of time, I don't see the need for it at present though culturally I understand (at least vaguely), the idea behind it.
Conscription should be a viable option provided there is an actual need for it i.e. imminent national threats, threats to pan global/regional stability or to key allies, formal state to state threats which can be addressed with traditional military engagements.
That being said male only conscription is not equitable in my opinion, taking into accounts the obvious medical asterisks that come into play when women may be called to serve. Equal rights is equal duty.
On April 02 2013 05:43 GGY0UMAKE wrote: I'm all for mandatory military. Half of this country lacks guidance, and discipline.
I find it funny that you think military service would fix that.
Guidance is pretty far off in terms of what military service does for people, discipline could probably argue that it teaches discipline to authority figures but that's about it. For the most part military service promise group mentality and deindividuation.
On April 02 2013 05:35 Daumen wrote: It should be just like you described it in the UK. If a country is endangered, it should have Mandatory Millitary Service (Korea). In Germany the MMS was put on a hold (cant get rid of it completely because its in our Constitution) and I think that was a good decision.
yeah I like it the way it is right now in germany. What we had before was just weird and unfair. Saying that as someone who didn't have to do military service while it was still in place and didn't have to do Zivi either (if you got chosen you could still tell them "I don't wanna" in which case you'd have to do alternative civilian service like working in hospitals for basicly no money and stuff like that)
I don't know, felt really weird to have some people being forced to do military service while others don't have to (among boys, girls didn't have to) because they didn't eat for 3 days before the checkup so that the doc said he's nuts and shouldn't be given a gun or whatever you did to look not suitable.
In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
On April 02 2013 05:39 Brawny wrote: Considering how the draft was received during the vietnam war here in the US, I can't imagine how it would be received in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not it's necessary, I think the outcry would be too great. I can't speak for other countries though.
IMO, this is a strong argument for re-instating the draft, and it also shows why they probably never will.
I disagree with everything my country is doing overseas, but I don't care enough to get out and do something about it because it doesn't directly affect me. IMO, that's one of the biggest differences between Vietnam and today. If we had the draft today, millions of young people including myself would be out in the streets saying "end the wars." But it's basically out of sight out of mind for me, so I sit on my butt and play starcraft instead.
It used to be mandatory here in Sweden but the last 10-15 years or so its pretty much up to the individual to decide if he wants to do the military service or not. (And even if you'd want to there's a good chance they won't let you anyway)
The military might have made "men" out of boys back in the day but believe me, thats not the case today, I know alot of people who has done the service and they are just as childish and immature as the next guy
We had mms in germany but it was easy to get a way around it. 50% of the people were considered not to be fit for service because they didnt really need that many people anyhow.. Also you could choose to do civil service instead if you could credibly attest that you are a pacifist and have moral concerns holding a weapon. But if you get invalided out for medical reasons you didnt have to do anything and were able to save one year of sitting around doing nothing and go earlier to university instead. So basically there were only people attending military service that really wanted to do it (some people like to sit around and waste one year of your life sitting around drinking beer apparently) and people that were too stupid to do civil service or find some dumb reason to get invalided out. It was pretty easy. You just had to say you fear being bullied because of some reason ( could be anything from being gay to being insecure or depressive)
So rightfully mms was abolished because it was a joke anyways. A the moment germany is building up a professional army instead. Less manpower, but more specialized and way more professional. I think wars are more high tech nowadays where manpower isnt as crucial and on different layers for example on the internet or in the economy. So its not like a bunch of young fools running around the obstacle course would make a big difference anyhow.
MMS is needed for countries land locked to their theoretical enemies. It is the only way to get a large enough military reserve ready prior to the war.
If you don't see your enemy being near you then it is just a waste of peoples time. Unless you don't see that 1% being able to get work and keep it as a stimulus action.
In Belgium we got rid of it completely back in 1994. It's fun to hear older adults (aged 40 and above) talk about it. Some enjoyed it, others didn't. My dad spent a lot of his time being a bartender in an officer's mess. Not what I call a useful way of spending time in the army.
I don't see the need for it in Europe. The chances of the EU going to war on a scale that would require mass recruitment are rather slim. We've gone through two world wars in less than 50 years, costing the lives of tens of millions of people, we're not going to make that mistake again.
A lot of people bring up that mandatory military service is a good way of instilling discipline and workmanship ethic in young people but I don't agree. It all depends on how you have been brought up by your parents, and by the people you are surrounded with. People who are used to being lazy will find ways to be lazy, even in the army, and if they aren't being lazy, they will just do every single job so half-assedly that it becomes frustrating for the rest of the group.
On April 02 2013 06:34 maartendq wrote: In Belgium we got rid of it completely back in 1994. It's fun to hear older adults (aged 40 and above) talk about it. Some enjoyed it, others didn't. My dad spent a lot of his time being a bartender in an officer's mess. Not what I call a useful way of spending time in the army.
I don't see the need for it in Europe. The chances of the EU going to war on a scale that would require mass recruitment are rather slim. We've gone through two world wars in less than 50 years, costing the lives of tens of millions of people, we're not going to make that mistake again.
If only the act of losing men in the past actually prevented wars from happening in the future....
I agree that the draft is bad--but I am not hopeful that "losing lots of men in WW2" will prevent war from happening in the future.
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
If the guy trying to start a war could have his son killed too he might think twice about starting shit.
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
If the guy trying to start a war could have his son killed too he might think twice about starting shit.
Are you suggesting that political appointees are required to have at least one of their children in military service in order to curb any feelings of going off to war?
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
If the guy trying to start a war could have his son killed too he might think twice about starting shit.
As if anyone in that position of power has to worry about such a thing.
"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:
On April 02 2013 06:34 maartendq wrote: In Belgium we got rid of it completely back in 1994. It's fun to hear older adults (aged 40 and above) talk about it. Some enjoyed it, others didn't. My dad spent a lot of his time being a bartender in an officer's mess. Not what I call a useful way of spending time in the army.
I don't see the need for it in Europe. The chances of the EU going to war on a scale that would require mass recruitment are rather slim. We've gone through two world wars in less than 50 years, costing the lives of tens of millions of people, we're not going to make that mistake again.
If only the act of losing men in the past actually prevented wars from happening in the future....
I agree that the draft is bad--but I am not hopeful that "losing lots of men in WW2" will prevent war from happening in the future.
It will probably prevent it from happening again in Europe. Personally, I will never take up arms to defend any cause. I'm strongly convince that the only thing violence entails is more violence and hate.
Still, the sad reality is indeed that wars will always happen and that innocent people will suffer because of them.
Hookster, that's a very nice quote, but the content of it is so false. Throughout it's 1300 years of history, the Roman empire was never able to enlist more than 1% of its population at any given time. What it did have, however, was an army of highly trained professionals that kicked the crap out of any hastily conscripted army. I doubt that the Romans would have had as many difficulties as they did if every citizen had actually been a soldier. Most of the Roman armies, especially near the end of the Empire, consisted of Auxiliary troops, basically legions of foreign mercenaries.
The only civilisation that managed to draft a ridiculously huge part of its population were the Chinese during the Warring States and Spring and Autumn Periods.
Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
lol
I'm not a fan of it myself but calling it slavery just means you don't really understand its purpose.
Usually if you have a strong nation, you have good defence willingness. In Finland that is around 80%, which is very high. If it was not mandatory, everybody would not go there. Why? Because when you are 18-20 you are still a kid and you do stupid things. After the service you have good memories about it. Also, sometimes in life you have to do something which is not fun. Get over it.
Edit: and for the conscription picture: it is not the same everywhere. De jure it is "mandatory" in many nations, but rich people buy their way out of it. For example, in México (where I live atm) you can just bribe the officials to skip the service.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
or the people deserve it to be conquored, and be shown the true meaning of slavery.
No man of honor resists the call to arms. The call of duty \m/
On April 02 2013 06:59 JethroSC wrote: Drafts might be good, depending on the situation. But making it males-only is just sexist.
I didn't know this discussion was about gender constitution? My bad, I thought it was a philosophical discussion on the ethics and validity of conscription.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
lol
I'm not a fan of it myself but calling it slavery just means you don't really understand its purpose.
The purpose is to force people to work against their will. Just because you attach niceties such as "teaching discipline or civic responsibility" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the act.
If you are not a soldier by your spirit and mind-set, you are sentenced to get overrun by the government and the policy makers. The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
Don't see it as necessary really. Most standing armed forces are large enough to deal with humanitarian/peacekeeping operations, especially in collaboration with other countries. If the native populace were genuinely threatened by some hypothetical enemy, I don't see them needing conscription to mobilise the requisite forces.
Opt-outs for moral reasons that are seemingly the preserve of religious groups are retarded as well. You should be able to opt out for non-religious reasons as well.
Plus, people make out as if economic circumstance aren't a motivator. There's always that pull if the military struggles to get the manpower, there's rampant unemployment, so that carrot will always be there as well.
Just wanted to point out that Libya (that grey north-African country) has mandatory military service but enforcing it is next to impossible due to the recent civil war.
Anyway I did almost 2 years of military service and found it a complete waste of time.
Finland is a bad example for a discussion about armed forces. We are a tiny nation with something like 15 hectares of land per person. It is extremely inconvienient and costly, if even possible at all, to defend this country with less than 300,000 men. Military consisting of only hired personnel (and voluntaries) could probably not hold long enough for the reserves to be called to arms and organized.
I see mandatory military service being very situational, I can very well understand it for countries like Finland, South Korea and Israel (though I might always not agree how the military is used) but in places like UK, US, Russia and China which have large population MMS is not necessary. Big nations can have large enough professional armies without any general conscription.
Forcing people to serve the military is a bad idea. World should be forcing people to have a "how to settle differences peacefully" period for a few years upon reaching that certain age.
The world is a horrible place and there are horrible people who will do horrible things. Sadly sometimes killing them is the only answer. However forcing someone to do that is wrong. It should always be a choice and no one should have that choice made for them.
On April 02 2013 07:06 Hookster wrote: If you are not a soldier by your spirit and mind-set, you are sentenced to get overrun by the government and the policy makers. The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
Military service is expressly designed as a massive resocialization to break down independant thought and get you to execute orders from your superiors without hesitation. This practice doesn't better equip you to question policy makers by any stretch of the imagination and often leads to superiors expressing their political ideals in relation to the security of the military profession. (Even some charitable organizations in the military ala the CPOs mess are thinly veiled with their pro-conservative neo-con ideals.) Being a "soldier" by "spirit" is not exclusive to people trained by the armed forces. I'm a first class petty officer in the us military FYI.
This otherwise interesting thread is degenerating into machismo and military aggrandizement. If I wanted that, I'd watch any American military movie since 1980.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
lol
I'm not a fan of it myself but calling it slavery just means you don't really understand its purpose.
The purpose is to force people to work against their will. Just because you attach niceties such as "teaching discipline or civic responsibility" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the act.
The service is different for different countries.
For example: in the US, the service required is to register your name once you're 18. It requires one signature and zero effort afterwards.
This is different from say Israel which requires a length of service over a period of time.
Each country has their own way of implementing the system and the amount of "work" asked of you is between zero => a few years. And there isn't any niceties to it--when you choose to stay in a country you are in essence agreeing to be part of their cultural norms. If part of those norms is the government giving young adults money to go to school, then you accept that as normal. If part of those norms is the government asking young adults to be part of an education program, then you accept the norm. If part of those norms has it so that the education program has some level of military aspects to it, you accept it as the norm.
The US requiring young adults to have their name registered in the military is no different than requiring their name to be registered into the DMV when you want to drive a car. Except people get in trouble and are harassed more often for getting their name into the DMV registry than the Army registry.
calling it slavery is trying to misdirect the emotions of the argument in order to circumvent the need to have an actual argument against it. I personally hate conscription, but I don't actually have an argument against it other then I do no like it.
Saying a government can't force their citizens to regimented exercise and required national camaraderie all while giving work training in order for people to have work history in their records instead of a blank jobless history a lot of college grads have instead just sounds silly to me.
I love Robert Heinlein's idea presented in his book "For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs" concerning conscription.
from Wikipedia:
Of specific note is the "War Voting Act". In this act, if the United States wished to engage in armed conflict with any other country, a national referendum was required to be held. Voting on a war is limited to citizens eligible for military service and not currently in the military. In the event that the article was passed and the country was to go to war, those who had voted for war were the first to be enlisted in the armed forces, those who did not vote were the second group conscripted, and those who voted "No" were the third group.
A personal note: In Austria we still have mandatory conscription, but you can refuse to serve with a weapon and do civil service instead. I chose this so called "Zivildienst" and I could take a lot of very influental experinces with me, both good and bad. I'd recommend everyone to do this. The big problem is, if you don't live with your parents or they can't support you, you are completely broke and can't really afford ANY standard of living because the money you earn is a joke. It is basically forcing young men into one year of poverty to fill holes in Austria's social system, for example ambulances heavily rely on these young man. It would take a lot of money to create those jobs now done by forced young men.
Austria recently held a referendum about removing mandatory conscription. Pollsters found out that people voted for keeping it not because of military arguments or defense, they wanted to keep it because of the mandatory civil service.
20 something years ago in my country no woman would marry a man that hasn't done the military service. those man were considered weak because only cowards and mentally impaired people didn't go. it was considered an honor to attend. but times changed, and as the years approached 2000 more and more people started skipping and government had bad time trying to enforce it until it was abolished 5 years ago.
IMO, one of the best years in my life. Conscription is meant to teach you basic weapons handling and to follow orders
I think conscription isn't necessary a good thing, I served 9 months. Out of these, the first 45 days were the "newbie center", where you are taught how to follow orders, throw grenades, fire machineguns and so on. The other was time spent doing menial tasks like cleaning the barracks, doing sentry duty and so on. However, I strongly believe every man would only gain from a "newbie center".
On April 02 2013 07:38 AysiktiriX wrote: I think conscription isn't necessary a good thing, I served 9 months. Out of these, the first 45 days were the "newbie center", where you are taught how to follow orders, throw grenades, fire machineguns and so on. The other was time spent doing menial tasks like cleaning the barracks, doing sentry duty and so on. However, I strongly believe every man would only gain from a "newbie center".
On April 02 2013 07:38 AysiktiriX wrote: I think conscription isn't necessary a good thing, I served 9 months. Out of these, the first 45 days were the "newbie center", where you are taught how to follow orders, throw grenades, fire machineguns and so on. The other was time spent doing menial tasks like cleaning the barracks, doing sentry duty and so on. However, I strongly believe every man would only gain from a "newbie center".
Doesn't even have to be so directed.
Physical education is already a part of US schools, especially high schools and grade schools. Requiring the last two years of high school to have PE (Physical Education) that is similar in training to some basic and common boot camp exercises with a strict grading policy would produce similar results in both physical aptitude and mental discipline. The goal being to force discipline into physically capable students and to force physicality to grade grubbing students.
It would also force the philosophical ideal of a "whole" human that is both physical capable as well as mentally capable.
On April 02 2013 07:24 Oukka wrote: Finland is a bad example for a discussion about armed forces. We are a tiny nation with something like 15 hectares of land per person. It is extremely inconvienient and costly, if even possible at all, to defend this country with less than 300,000 men. Military consisting of only hired personnel (and voluntaries) could probably not hold long enough for the reserves to be called to arms and organized.
I see mandatory military service being very situational, I can very well understand it for countries like Finland, South Korea and Israel (though I might always not agree how the military is used) but in places like UK, US, Russia and China which have large population MMS is not necessary. Big nations can have large enough professional armies without any general conscription.
That said, all 300,000 of Finland's fighting men are badass. Look at the Winter War
As a Russian, I think the draft is more emergency than anything, seeing as almost all of the manpower is going into reserve forces. Russia is a large country with few people, and if anything, the draft ensures that Russia can stay intact if it gets invaded, particularly the less populated areas.
Also might probably be historically based, losing millions of soldiers and civilians to a Nazi invasion in World War II might make you a little bit paranoid.
The other three you named don't have a draft and looks like they're happy with things the way they are.
On April 02 2013 06:59 Hookster wrote: Usually if you have a strong nation, you have good defence willingness. In Finland that is around 80%, which is very high. If it was not mandatory, everybody would not go there. Why? Because when you are 18-20 you are still a kid and you do stupid things. After the service you have good memories about it. Also, sometimes in life you have to do something which is not fun. Get over it.
Edit: and for the conscription picture: it is not the same everywhere. De jure it is "mandatory" in many nations, but rich people buy their way out of it. For example, in México (where I live atm) you can just bribe the officials to skip the service.
It's semi-mandatory. I'm mexican as well, and there's a raffle where a ball is picked. If when your name is called a black ball is pulled, it means you have to be "available" which for the last 50+ years means you forget about it and just pick your papers in a few months. If a white ball is pulled, then you can pick between civil service (mainly take part in alphabetization/reforestation/disaster recovery stuff) or the actual military training on the army or navy once a week for 11 months. The black to other colors ratio is about 10/1
However, I do agree that if a white or blue is pulled, bribing the officer is traditionally resorted by wealthy people, although passing military service is socially regarded as an accomplishment, so they guys that pass through it are generally proud of doing so.
On April 02 2013 06:59 Hookster wrote: Usually if you have a strong nation, you have good defence willingness. In Finland that is around 80%, which is very high. If it was not mandatory, everybody would not go there. Why? Because when you are 18-20 you are still a kid and you do stupid things. After the service you have good memories about it. Also, sometimes in life you have to do something which is not fun. Get over it.
Edit: and for the conscription picture: it is not the same everywhere. De jure it is "mandatory" in many nations, but rich people buy their way out of it. For example, in México (where I live atm) you can just bribe the officials to skip the service.
It's semi-mandatory. I'm mexican as well, and there's a raffle where a ball is picked. If when your name is called a black ball is pulled, it means you have to be "available" which for the last 50+ years means you forget about it and just pick your papers in a few months. If a white ball is pulled, then you can pick between civil service (mainly take part in alphabetization/reforestation/disaster recovery stuff) or the actual military training on the army or navy once a week for 11 months. The black to other colors ratio is about 10/1
However, I do agree that if a white or blue is pulled, bribing the officer is traditionally resorted by wealthy people, although passing military service is socially regarded as an accomplishment, so they guys that pass through it are generally proud of doing so.
I love how you guys made a game-show out of it. Is the selection-process televised, commentated and girls in bikinis shake their marraccas, while a guy with a mustache and a huge hat shoots two pistols in the air?
And for Kronen: it is harder for the government to order the military something bad for its citizens if it made of the nations citizens. Different story for mercenaries. You have pros and cons with both of them, so usually one might want to a bit of both.
In the face of imminent destruction by armed means, yes. For each and every other war, no. As one of the remaining sexist constructs, I'd say open to both sexes eligible for combat.
I mainly feel this way from the economic impact of conducting wars with unwilling participants. The most recent example was Vietnam. Draft dodgers and low morale in addition to a host of other problems associated with the way that war was waged. Major economic disruption as the machinery of industry is now understaffed. It is best only used when the entire country faces invasion and tyranny.
Conscription during war in which the country is actively involved I can understand, but outside of wartimes it's basically robbing you of your freedom of choice if you in no way want to be in the military.
On April 02 2013 05:39 Brawny wrote: Considering how the draft was received during the vietnam war here in the US, I can't imagine how it would be received in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not it's necessary, I think the outcry would be too great. I can't speak for other countries though.
Vietnam war is probably the single worst example to advocate a draft for. Turns out fighting a political battle vs communism 10,000 miles away in a country that will never affect the U.S. is a shitty reason to die for. At least if that country 10,000 miles away didn't attack you on your own soil, killed thousands of Americans and isn't called Japan.
is the idea of dying for your country really that hard to understand for many people?
koreans see it as more of a pride thing; need to protect their proud country, protecting their family, serving your country. it isnt so romantic, plenty of people hate it. (the morale of korean military is debatable from what i hear)
there's always two sides to the story. there are people that fakes injuries so they can avoid it and there are those who accept it. your country is under threat, you can say "i will fight for my country" or "i dont want to be involved", one will obviously look brighter light than the other.
it really varies by country and its people, usa isn't really under threat from war and people have so many different backgrounds that not everyone is up for fighting for the red white and blue, and only for the right reasons, like muhammad ali aka cassius clay.
I'm very against military service in general, be it mandatory or not - especially when I don't agree with the conflict-ideals of the country I live in.
I really only think mandatory military enlistment is needed in 2 situations: If your country is in a dangerous area/is in threat of being attacked, and if your country is currently under attack. I don't think mms should be used for offensive purposes, only defensive and only when direly needed.
On April 02 2013 10:55 Epishade wrote: I really only think mandatory military enlistment is needed in 2 situations: If your country is in a dangerous area/is in threat of being attacked, and if your country is currently under attack. I don't think mms should be used for offensive purposes, only defensive and only when direly needed.
Actually--this true for everyone. What isn't true for everyone is how "dire" and "in danger" any given nation is at any given time.
In Vietnam, if you are accepted into Colleges/Universities you don't need to do any military service at all. After 1990 not all people that can't study further after high school needs to join the army, just a portion of them since Vietnam greatly reduce its military personnel when the US abolish its embargo against Vietnam.
I am against mandatory services since for some people its a totally waste of time. Maybe for some countries they need that to protect themselves( North/South Korea come to mind)
I do support military service for people that have nothing better to do, it brings down the social problems and open a new path for lots of people.
This conversation seems almost impossible to have without a more narrow context. For example, South Korea and Israel have existential threats that aren't faced by many other countries.
So when you get comments like this:
On April 02 2013 10:09 Velinath wrote: I'm very against military service in general, be it mandatory or not - especially when I don't agree with the conflict-ideals of the country I live in.
They don't really add anything. Although my point is that almost all of the comments are out of context.
The willingness of someone to put their life on the line is moral accountability for a war. Forcing people to fight compromises that accountability.
For example, if the United States were invaded, our defense would be a morally justifiable war. There would be 10 million volunteers by the next morning. No draft would be needed. If the United States were to invade Europe, virtually no one would volunteer, and a draft would be undesirable.
On April 02 2013 16:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote: It shouldn't really be needed in this modern era anymore unless some sort of extraterrestrial threat appears that necessitates it..
But hen the whole world would simply look at the US and expect it to kamikaze a couple of fighter jets into the alien aircraft and rid the world of the allien invaders.
An army can respond against natural disasters or just civil emergencies in general.
You need something or someone to guard your boarders and make sure that your arbitrary rules are enforced. Without this you end up with other nations abusing your lack of guards as a free pass.
Having UN / NATO alliances is not a guarantee that nobody will ever invade your country. Not even nuclear weapons are a 100% guarantee because you cannot defend yourself by committing suicide (the deterrence it offers is a fake one).
Conscription roots the army with the people they are supposed to defend and pulls from both higher born and lower born. It teaches them about the world we live in. (A global anarchy of states with a few bigger ones bullying the smaller ones).
Some youtube stuff. Europe conscription crisis: Yes Minister has relevant satire. Professional armies means ageing soldiers and a military that cannot defend their nations for more than a day. Conscription informs the public and keeps them invested in the nation's well being, it gives those finishing it a useful attitude, and complementary skills. While the people trying to run away from it cringe to our politicians I'd like to believe it is an eye opener for the youths affected by it.
I'll cop out on the OP and say "it depends". For some countries like South Korea that face "win or die" war scenarios, yes, conscription is necessary. In countries like the US that do not face such scenarios, no.
Let's not beat around the bush, mandatory service is tantamount to slavery. Whether that's a policy worth adopting is up to the regime, which will eventually have to answer to its citizens.
I don't think there is a very persuasive argument for forced service in the name of improving fitness or discipline or patriotism among young men on an ongoing basis.
I wonder how many of the people here that say male only conscription is sexist, that actually have any experience with girls in the military. Fact of the matter is that most women dont have the physique to be in the military. Example; Not many womend can lift their 20-30 kilo back-pack to shoulder height or higher to get it onto a truck or something like that Not many womend can carry 20-40 kilo artillery ammuniton Not many women can carry a wounded fellow soldier out of combat Not many women have the stamina to hoof around with with 30 kilos of equipment used for regular patrols.
And there's also the fact that women break down way more often than men under extreme pressure situations (read: War) while males usually deal with it later (and develop PTSS and things of the sort)
Dont get me wrong, if women meet an objective standard of strenght measurement (i. e. not body-weight related like pull-ups, push-ups, etc.) I think they should be allowed to enter. However it's a basic fact that the average female isnt strong enough for most positions in the current modern army.
To illustrate my point Ill tell you about a girl I served my MMS with. This girl was tough as nails, unlike the other girls I served with she didnt bitch and whine and did her job properly. I never heard a single complaint from her. She dreamt about serving in Afghanistan and worked hard towards that goal. However she couldn't escape the fact that she was about 1.55m and weighed about 45 kilos. Obviously she never made the cut for those that went.
On April 02 2013 05:39 Brawny wrote: Considering how the draft was received during the vietnam war here in the US, I can't imagine how it would be received in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not it's necessary, I think the outcry would be too great. I can't speak for other countries though.
Yeah, but the United States wasn't actually defending itself during the Vietnam War, they were just fighting communists in Vietnam. If a country was actually under attack a draft would be received way better because the threat is clearly visible and is a threat to the individual.
On April 02 2013 05:39 Brawny wrote: Considering how the draft was received during the vietnam war here in the US, I can't imagine how it would be received in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not it's necessary, I think the outcry would be too great. I can't speak for other countries though.
Yeah, but the United States wasn't actually defending itself during the Vietnam War, they were just fighting communists in Vietnam. If a country was actually under attack a draft would be received way better because the threat is clearly visible and is a threat to the individual.
If the draft is well received there's no fricken need for it!
On April 02 2013 16:54 Aphasie wrote: I wonder how many of the people here that say male only conscription is sexist, that actually have any experience with girls in the military. Fact of the matter is that most women dont have the physique to be in the military. Example; Not many womend can lift their 20-30 kilo back-pack to shoulder height or higher to get it onto a truck or something like that Not many womend can carry 20-40 kilo artillery ammuniton Not many women can carry a wounded fellow soldier out of combat Not many women have the stamina to hoof around with with 30 kilos of equipment used for regular patrols.
And there's also the fact that women break down way more often than men under extreme pressure situations (read: War) while males usually deal with it later (and develop PTSS and things of the sort)
Dont get me wrong, if women meet an objective standard of strenght measurement (i. e. not body-weight related like pull-ups, push-ups, etc.) I think they should be allowed to enter. However it's a basic fact that the average female isnt strong enough for most positions in the current modern army.
To illustrate my point Ill tell you about a girl I served my MMS with. This girl was tough as nails, unlike the other girls I served with she didnt bitch and whine and did her job properly. I never heard a single complaint from her. She dreamt about serving in Afghanistan and worked hard towards that goal. However she couldn't escape the fact that she was about 1.55m and weighed about 45 kilos. Obviously she never made the cut for those that went.
my 2 cents
Exactly my thoughts, the military needs more horses, they can carry so much more artillery ammunition and have the stamina to hoof around with 200 kilos of equipment O_o
Admittedly, I don't understand much about the requirements of the "modern" military, but why should everyone have to fulfill the same tasks in a unit? Why shouldn't there be specialists that have different abilities than the normal grunt? It's not like a country like Norway beats the enemy with sheer numbers and can't afford non-standardized equipment!
I am looking forward to my conscription that will happen soon, I think it is more like a physical and mental training regimen and will aid me in potential sc2 career.
Former soldier here in the Australian army where service is not mandatory.
Personally I believe military service should be compulsory for the following reasons: Obviously exceptions would need to be made and only physically and mentally fit people would be recruited. Having compulsory service means that many more people cycle through the forces and training and your country is able to have a much larger force at any one time with the people currently serving than in countries where service is voluntary. In addition do this you're able to lower the minimum term of service creating a sort of gap year style or even 6 month style program with the military means that people are able to get the training and and leave with relatively little impact on their lives, this means that the people benefit from military discipline and the country benefits by having a great many more citizens who are military trained, this when supplemented with yearly training to keep general skills up would mean that the core permanent army and its budget would be able to be kept reasonably small while the fighting capability of the country would be quite strong. By doing this and having most of the country in a form of "reservist" training cycle would alleviate a lot of the tedium usually experienced by full time soldiers keeping training interesting and rewarding.
In addition to this the compulsory training could be used as a pathway into the other government agencies with military doctors/nurses moving into those fields and the other corps having the opportunity to undergo additional training then moving into the regular police force or fire dept.
On a personal note I look back on my infantry experience as a positive thing, while I did not overly enjoy my job and I can think of some pretty negative experiences, I gained an awful lot from my time in the service and so my personal bias is towards service on the whole.
I'm against mandatory conscription. These days countries need professional armies, not some random people who is counting days to get home (in my country it's like that at least). Two of my friends had to spend 1 year there. Both learned nothing at all, because... well, not like if they wouldn't pass some "exam" or test anything would've changed, one year is still one year no matter what. Oh yeah, they learned how to wash floors better and run 20kms without stops. Sure that will help them in their life (they both are programmers now).
In my opinion most part of the army should be professional soldiers with contracts. It's their job, so they will be useful when/if the time comes for some "action". Unlike people who never wanted to be in army and never learnt anything. But there also should be some part for "patriots", who are not professionals, but still want to serve their country for some time and maybe become professional soldiers later.
As for myself, I've skipped military completely. Students can't be drafted (or at least couldn't been when I was at that age), so after I finished university, I went to another one and just waited untill I was out of the draft's age. Had to pay some good cash to some people, because I actually never had intentions or time to finish 2nd university. (means I was a student just on paper). It it wrong and anti patriotic? Maybe. Do I care? Not at all. I saved 1 year of my life (a year from the better part of the life I should say) and I "saved" a lot of money, because 1 year in military means no money/no job.
Honestly i believe it should be the only military allowed There shouldn't be a profession in which you kill people, and it shouldn't be voluntary. If you gonna wage wars it should be important enough that you are willing and able to force people to do it.
Geopolitical location usually defines whether mandatory military service is needed (Finland, South Korea, Israel). Obviously I did not like when I had to waste 6 to 12 months camping in the woods and being told what to do, but thinking back it was a pretty awesome experience, especially socially, perhaps even mentally. Where else would a civilian get to shoot an automatic military modeled assault or sniper rifle, a bazooka, LMG, drive a tank or take over a mall in the night?
Were I given a choice, obviously I wouldn't gone to the army, but it was a interesting experience nonetheless.
im gonna say yes, even though im a korean australian and therefore dont need to serve in korea's military. besides the obvious fact that were still at war, many koreans (especially the older generation), believe that going to the military "mans you up." a lot of people before going to the military are still clueless about life and require guidance and discipline. sure, spending 2 years in the military is a bitch, but there are some positives that come out of it that arent really noticeable to people outside korean society.
I don't really have much of a "political opinion" on the subject but a very personal one. Switzerland, where I live, has mandatory military service that usually consists of 21 weeks of basic training and then 3 week repetation courses each year up to a total of 300 days. Now if you are an idiot like me and at the age of 19 make the uninformed decision to "rank up" that can be more. I'm "Wachtmeister" what I think translates to sergeant (please correct me) which means I did 37 weeks inital and have to do a total of 400 days. Currently I'm at 330 days. Looking back I can honestly say it was a utter waste of time. Luckily switzerland is in a situation where it is unlikely to be involved in a conventional war. As a result serving with the artillery feels fairly pointless since there is no visible threat that it would help against. Also from my experience I don't buy the whole "manning up" and "learning discipline" stuff. In fact I mostly learned how to avoid doing work and taking responsibility. Also I find it downright ridiculous and insulting how the military has this whole propaganda rethoric to it "blah blah we are the best... make fun of other troops... lets shout some contrived motto". Guess what if you conscript a bunch of highly educated people (as switzerland is about as first worldy as it gets) they can see through that crap!
In the end all i got out of those 330 days so far was like two funny stories to tell, a lot of lost time, repetition courses massively interfering with my studies and a constant feeling of "man what could i have done with all that time that I spent wasting tax money for nothing".
As stated in this thread it's just a cold fact that some countries must have a mandatory service. I include Finland as one of them. There's good arguments also against it, but if your country doesn't force you to go fight someone else's war or attack another country, is it really that bad?
For example I... Spent a year in mandatory service, therefore missed a whole year of university studies. Was selected to a be trained as a reserve officer. Sometimes it was fun, sometimes really shit. Made it to television (lol). Learned to lead large masses of people, organize things, make quick decisions under pressure. Got paid like ~100-300€/month. Met a lot of different kind of people (even a future miss finland finalist serving with me). Am still good friends with a few fellow officers.
On April 02 2013 16:54 Aphasie wrote: I wonder how many of the people here that say male only conscription is sexist, that actually have any experience with girls in the military. Fact of the matter is that most women dont have the physique to be in the military. Example; Not many womend can lift their 20-30 kilo back-pack to shoulder height or higher to get it onto a truck or something like that Not many womend can carry 20-40 kilo artillery ammuniton Not many women can carry a wounded fellow soldier out of combat Not many women have the stamina to hoof around with with 30 kilos of equipment used for regular patrols.
And there's also the fact that women break down way more often than men under extreme pressure situations (read: War) while males usually deal with it later (and develop PTSS and things of the sort)
Dont get me wrong, if women meet an objective standard of strenght measurement (i. e. not body-weight related like pull-ups, push-ups, etc.) I think they should be allowed to enter. However it's a basic fact that the average female isnt strong enough for most positions in the current modern army.
To illustrate my point Ill tell you about a girl I served my MMS with. This girl was tough as nails, unlike the other girls I served with she didnt bitch and whine and did her job properly. I never heard a single complaint from her. She dreamt about serving in Afghanistan and worked hard towards that goal. However she couldn't escape the fact that she was about 1.55m and weighed about 45 kilos. Obviously she never made the cut for those that went.
my 2 cents
Exactly my thoughts, the military needs more horses, they can carry so much more artillery ammunition and have the stamina to hoof around with 200 kilos of equipment.
Admittedly, I don't understand much about the requirements of the "modern" military, but why should everyone have to fulfill the same tasks in a unit? Why shouldn't there be specialists that have different abilities than the normal grunt? It's not like a country like Norway beats the enemy with sheer numbers!
This is simply being ignorant.
I did MMS in a supporting branch of the army (air-defense) where physical requirements that conscripts must attain are far below what is expected of infantry, which means the biological differences between men and women in strength and stamina matter far less during excercises and drills than it would in a front-line unit.
My Battery had around 10% female voluntary conscripts, and as a rule the squads and sections they were assigned to had to pick up their slack during every major excercise and drill. These aren't just any unmotivated chicks out looking to get laid or express their endowment to feminist ideals by joining the military, but people who genuinely wanted to serve their country, learn what it means to be a soldier (as much as anyone can without seeing actual combat) and who tried their best in all situations. Frankly these women had more balls than half their sections combined, yet the morale among the squads they were assigned to was lower than all-male squads, and they generally took longer to establish and fortify new positions and be ready to fire / support the firing teams. In case their activities were hampered by enemy attacks, their sustained "casualities" (in training excercises) were higher than in all-male squads.
The women were actually excellent specialists (signals operators, weapon system commanders, etc) in their respective fields, but they were much worse all-arounders. That meant that when everything went smoothly and there was no interference they did produce good results, often better than the all-male squads. The thing is, there will never be a combat situation that resembles peacetime "ideal" training conditions. There will be casualities, interference, defection, low morale and other issues that heavily influence the capabilities of the squad. You will be undermanned and outgunned, and that is the situation you want your military to be prepared for. What matters is that the squad can perform what is expected of it, not that it can exceed that expectation in ideal conditions and fail it in worse conditions.
If the women had only had to fulfill a very narrow niche in their units, this wouldn't be an issue. However, this means that the unit has to have an additional member who can perform the tasks that aren't getting done since the specialist is not able to do it. That's another person you have to feed, house and train. Military units in small countries are already stripped down to minimal numbers to keep costs down. You can't really have extra "ablative" soldiers goofing around for when things get sour. No army has an unending supply of grunts to magically appear out of the woods and perform every menial task you need done without any requirements for upkeep. You have to earn your weight in the military, and you have to be responsible for both yourself and your unit. That specialist who only does one task is essentially a "damsel in distress" regardless of actual gender who requires protection and has suddenly turned into a huge liability.
When it all comes down to it, gender is a complete non-issue. What matters is if you can do something or if if you can't. I met some female officers during my MMS who could've kicked my ass both literally and figuratively in anything regarding my assigned tasks, and those officers were well respected amongst the conscripts. The thing is, not all women are like that and neither are all men. Those women excelled because they had the physical ability to do so, not because they were women.
I think that the military should be more selective with male conscripts because it really serves no purpose to train completely unmotivated people and if you exclude women from conscription on the grounds of physique then you should also exclude obese and sickly underweight men as well. Then again, I'm a dirty conscript so what the hell do I know?
I really don't think there's a single good reason to force people in to the military. I'm fortunate in that it was never an issue for me, but I would rather go to prison than the army in any country. If a country is legitimately in danger and the current state of affairs is worth fighting with, then those so inclined will join up.
I'm finding that many of the points I want to make could fairly be considered as nation bashing (though that's not my intent) so I'm just going to stop. I'll just conclude by saying, I strongly consider it should be a war crime to force people in to a miiltary organisation.
Just as allowing women to serve in the military ignores the realities of warfare in general, and of gender roles in general. So even if conscription is your thing, best to keep it exclusively male.
On April 02 2013 19:33 Iyerbeth wrote: I really don't think there's a single good reason to force people in to the military. I'm fortunate in that it was never an issue for me, but I would rather go to prison than the army in any country. If a country is legitimately in danger and the current state of affairs is worth fighting with, then those so inclined will join up.
I'm finding that many of the points I want to make could fairly be considered as nation bashing (though that's not my intent) so I'm just going to stop. I'll just conclude by saying, I strongly consider it should be a war crime to force people in to a miiltary organisation.
Too bad the time you'd have to spend in the army is much shorter than the time in jail. There are not many people who have the conviction to spend a year in jail rather than 6 months in army cause of their beliefs.
On April 02 2013 19:33 Iyerbeth wrote: I really don't think there's a single good reason to force people in to the military. I'm fortunate in that it was never an issue for me, but I would rather go to prison than the army in any country. If a country is legitimately in danger and the current state of affairs is worth fighting with, then those so inclined will join up.
I'm finding that many of the points I want to make could fairly be considered as nation bashing (though that's not my intent) so I'm just going to stop. I'll just conclude by saying, I strongly consider it should be a war crime to force people in to a miiltary organisation.
Too bad the time you'd have to spend in the army is much shorter than the time in jail. There are not many people who have the conviction to spend a year in jail rather than 6 months in army cause of their beliefs.
Some people do have principles though
Incidentally, how many countries let you avoid the draft for moral (non-religious) reasons? I probably feel more anti-war, anti-nationalist than a hell of a lot of religious groups that get such opt outs from what I am reading?
I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
If the need is great, or the threat is real, and constant, yes. For example, in South Korea, ceasing mandatory service will reduce the strength of the armed forces, though by what degree is hard to say. However, since most of the Korean men I've talked to hate or hated the mandatory service, I can venture a guess and say the effect on the numbers will be quite dramatic. This cannot happen when we have a very credible threat to the north. Now this would be fine if the younger generation were as cognisant of what the north is capable of as those who experienced the war, or the aftermath, but with the ever-increasing presence of NK sympathisers and the rise of individualism, I doubt those losses can be covered in any meaningful manner.
Sometimes, the freedom and rights of the individual has to be sacrificed for the greater good.
On April 02 2013 19:33 Iyerbeth wrote: I really don't think there's a single good reason to force people in to the military. I'm fortunate in that it was never an issue for me, but I would rather go to prison than the army in any country. If a country is legitimately in danger and the current state of affairs is worth fighting with, then those so inclined will join up.
I'm finding that many of the points I want to make could fairly be considered as nation bashing (though that's not my intent) so I'm just going to stop. I'll just conclude by saying, I strongly consider it should be a war crime to force people in to a miiltary organisation.
Too bad the time you'd have to spend in the army is much shorter than the time in jail. There are not many people who have the conviction to spend a year in jail rather than 6 months in army cause of their beliefs.
Some people do have principles though
Incidentally, how many countries let you avoid the draft for moral (non-religious) reasons? I probably feel more anti-war, anti-nationalist than a hell of a lot of religious groups that get such opt outs from what I am reading?
I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
Doubt any country lets you avoid draft for any other than medical or religious reasons. What comes to discipline, I don't feel I was taught discipline, quite the opposite, I became more regardless of authorities and learned how to avoid working hard :D
On April 02 2013 05:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: In China, due to its highly political and military history in the formation of its country through different warring states, conscription continues today starting from circa 220 BC.
Your OP is pretty uninformative in general but I seriously question this particular line. Conscription existed way before 220 BC in China, and I'm pretty sure its non-existent now.
Conscription is undeniably necessary for certain countries, but its important to correctly determine the duration and extent of training that a conscript receives. If the duration is too long, then it leads to inefficiency and the unnecessary sacrifice of individual freedom.
Well discipline isn't adherence to authority anyway, for me it's a matter of self-motivation and if you have to be co-opted into displaying it, that isn't discipline.
In Israel we are surounded by 2 major terrorist groups, a country much bigger than us that every chance they got they threaten our anihilation, a country in chaos with a large chemical weapon arsenal and a country with a cold peace that could be broken in any moment because of Islamic extremists who took over the country. I don't see us surviving without a mandatory military service, which is considered here a dept you have to pay to the society, either man (3 years) or women (2 years).
You will be pressed hard to find a job if you didn't do the military service, and those who served in fightning units (especially officers) have certain benefits. The people who don't do the service are hated here and considered leeches (the Ortodox religious are a prime example).
I served 3 years in the army as an aircraft technitian, and I did learn about the value of team work, theory vs practice, being more independent person. Generally people in Israel in their early 20s after army are more mature relative to same age range on countries which doesn't have mandatory military service.
That being said, I don't see the point in holding a mandatory service in places like Scandinavian countries and Switzeland (lol wtf) as there isn't a constant threat to those countries, and it seems that troop morale is low because there is no point in holding them there.
On April 02 2013 20:50 Wombat_NI wrote: Well discipline isn't adherence to authority anyway, for me it's a matter of self-motivation and if you have to be co-opted into displaying it, that isn't discipline.
Are you actually from Kyrgyztan incidentally?
No, I'm just protecting my anonymity in da internets :3 The only kind of discipline you might learn is that you gain absurd tolerance for stupidity, there are people so stupid it makes you wonder why are they not diagnosed with autism. I do have a theory tho, they're not actual people, they're like unicorns, they only exist in army barracks. After your service, you'll never see them in the wild.
E: practically what the man under me said in internet speak.
I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
So far the majority of posts are from countries that employ or have employed conscription in the near past. The topic also would attract people who actually have been conscripted, so you are going to get a lot of weighted opinions. It's also been daytime in europe, which further drives the concensus towards one way of the spectrum. That being said, I was under the impression that the current consensus is that conscription is ok in areas that have a potential geopolitical foreign threat, but elsewhere there's no reason for it.
The discipline you learn in the army has less to do with blindly following orders (though there's plenty of that too) and more with dealing with people. When you throw a bunch of young guys into the same barracks, there's going to be some kind of conflict there. Discipline is a way to deal with that. If you have a problem with someone, you can't just tell him to fuck off and carry on with your life - you're going to have to work and possibly even sleep in the same room with him for a lengthy period of time. You might have to follow his orders and do what he says, no matter how menial it may seem. You can't go for the same old shit you did at school by shunning/avoiding that guy because the military institution forces you to work with him. Even if there's no innate conflict, the army will present you with plenty of situations where there will be an artificial one (Once you haven't slept at all in a couple of days, you're wet and cold and tired and someone busted up your only tent so your options are to sleep outside in -20C, or carry on without sleep, you tend to get pretty angry pretty quickly). If you haven't already, you learn to deal with people you'd rather not deal with to achieve a common goal, and that's a pretty good skill to have.
You're going to also have situations where other people in your unit haven't done what they're supposed to, and you have to do both your work and theirs. It teaches you the value of having people to rely on and may dispel some disillusions you have about what you aren't able to do by yourself. Lots of people wouldn't think they could hike 50 miles carrying around 80-100lb of equipment in a day, but it's actually pretty easy. I wasn't in good shape going in to the army and I could manage it just fine.
Working hard is something I feel is generally accepted as an inherent good thing, so I don't really know what you mean by it not being one. Work hard play hard seems to be something that's pretty universal
In Germany, mandatory military service was practically abandoned last year. Till then, all male adults were required to serve for about one year, but you could opt out of service on grounds of conscience; if you did, you were employed at some social or medical facility for roughly the same time.
The main argument for mandatory military service was never to bolster the strength of our armed forces, even though that was an important side-effect during high-tide cold war. The important thing was that we did not want our military to ever become closed off from the public again, a state of its own inside the nation. With new recruits from all fields of life came new ideas and new views into the force, forcing it to adapt to new times and new social backgrounds. After all, one thing that made the first half of the twentieth century what it was in my country was the unbreakable faith of the military, driven by misunderstood ideals of honor and loyalty, held high by a command corps of tightly-knit prussian noble families that cultivated the same ideas and ideals for generations. Without this state of mind inside the troops, neither the seminal catastrophe of World War 1 nor the dehumanization of an entire people in World War 2 would have been possible.
That is why we needed - and, in my humble opinion still need - mandatory military service in Germany. Not for our military to save us from the Russians, but for our people to save our military from itself. After all, we know what it can become if it is left to itself for too long.
Oh, and public service for Kriegsdienstverweigerer like me was a great experience of blissfully little responsibility before having to start into the dullness of actual adulthood! :-)
Much of my country's youth are wasters who will use any excuse to riot/cause damage. Recently there was a dispute over our City Hall removing the Union Jack 365/year and only displaying it on various dates. The consequence was almost a month of riots in select troublesome areas and various violence against parties/the police. There are still troubles going on 4 months later.
Mandatory enlistment wouldn't solve the issues at hand with this horrible country, but I'm pretty sure it might teach a few chavs the value of respect.
I had a pretty rewarding and fun experience serving 2 years of MMS. Basically, small nation, went independent after WW2, Started MMS to defend ourselves. Every male bitches about it but ironically, if a bunch of guys starts a conversation, alot of times, it's recounting their military experiences and having a good laugh about it. Asking "which unit did u serve in" is even one of the ice breaker between guys here. Granted, it took away 2 years of our prime and studies but since every single male(even PM"s son) does it, it's a a pretty fair system.
Many people here seems to have an idea of MMS being just weapons training and doing Sentry duties/ nothing /waiting for something to happen but you are horribly mistaken. U choose ur own path over here in the MMS just like u do in life. U can learn to lead(trust me, motivating ppl who dont want to be there is incredibly hard), excel at a particular skil which u can apply in the society in future or you can be one of those who waste 2 years mopping floors cos all u ever think of is to get out of it/slack/mylifeissad.
Some of the bonds that u forge whilst serving cannot be replicated in any community and it is during MMS that you see ppl from all walks of life/race/religion. The Muslims didn't drink water during Ramadan despite us training under a hot sun, so out of respect and camadarie, none of us drank too. Also, MMS gives u the first hand look of who are gonna succeed in life and whose gonna be wasting away their life. Those who excelled during MMS are often the ones who excel in society too. Those who are lazy/stupid/icanbebothered ended up in the lower echelons of the society.
So yeah, I had fun. I learn alot of things ranging from operating office machines to communication skills/motivating. And although I bitch about it as much as the next guy, I would gladly do it again. In fact, I always have a pretty good time during reservice, getting away from work stress and meeting old friends Doing stupid shit is pretty fun. My dad did it, I did it and I would want my son to do it too.
Just as allowing women to serve in the military ignores the realities of warfare in general, and of gender roles in general. So even if conscription is your thing, best to keep it exclusively male.
Not having conscription ignores the realities of the world and how fragile our current state of global affairs is. To operate emergent technologies you need a large standing army. To get the large standing army you need soldiers, and professional soldiers do not work for the same low pay as a conscripted soldier.
Not having conscription leads to a highly specialized and aging force that at best can hold the country for 12 hours or participate within a small parameter of an operation during international collaborations. This professional army will lack response times during natural disasters because of a highly centralized base of operations, and their capacity to function optimally if the scale of the disaster is large enough is significantly diminished from a larger force based on conscription. It will also lack the capacity to draft from the people educated in the tools of their trade that previously attended the army because the only sort of soldier they would attract is the career soldier.
On April 02 2013 05:42 Coriolis wrote: Drafts usually don't end well, but I can see why forced service even during peace time can be a good thing. A lot of people are total losers, and I doubt some military discipline will hurt them.
Separating people into winners and losers, yup, you and military are a good fit. I had a cousin who went into the military here in Brazil, he went from a normal teen(homophobic, sexist, nihilist) into an abnormal adult(homophobic, sexist, nihilist). I went to his graduation in the military HQ, everything sucked, from food to basic social skills. Here in Brazil alistment is mandatory but you dont have to actually do service, you go into "reserve". Gosh it's so hideous.
If anything we should be bringing back mandatory military service, or at the very least, militia service. I have a great deal of respect for countries like Austria, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, etc. for they still value responsibility.
Better to keep the draft available in case it's needed than to get rid of it, though hopefully Uncle Sam won't trust cowardly pacifist wimps like me with a rifle
On April 02 2013 05:42 Coriolis wrote: Drafts usually don't end well, but I can see why forced service even during peace time can be a good thing. A lot of people are total losers, and I doubt some military discipline will hurt them.
Separating people into winners and losers, yup, you and military are a good fit. I had a cousin who went into the military here in Brazil, he went from a normal teen(homophobic, sexist, nihilist) into an abnormal adult(homophobic, sexist, nihilist). I went to his graduation in the military HQ, everything sucked, from food to basic social skills. Here in Brazil alistment is mandatory but you dont have to actually do service, you go into "reserve". Gosh it's so hideous.
The only reason I would be for it, is to spread the sacrifice among rich/poor families. Of course, it doesn't work that way so I suppose I am against it. Military life isn't for everyone, and especially in my case. Discipline ha! pretty much gave me an even more rebellious/pessimistic view of things in general. Although I am thankful that I got to experience other cultures outside of the US, definitely. My Italian friends would always throw great parties for me when I finished my time restricted to the base. :D
On April 02 2013 18:46 evilfatsh1t wrote: im gonna say yes, even though im a korean australian and therefore dont need to serve in korea's military. besides the obvious fact that were still at war, many koreans (especially the older generation), believe that going to the military "mans you up." a lot of people before going to the military are still clueless about life and require guidance and discipline. sure, spending 2 years in the military is a bitch, but there are some positives that come out of it that arent really noticeable to people outside korean society.
I had a Korean friend in college who did his military service before coming to America. When i was talking to him about it he honestly hated it so much. It did "man him up" i guess because he said that when he got back from doing military service he was able to become agitated a lot more quickly and generally just a more aggressive person (although he didnt seem much that angry to me).
I think mandatory military sounds good in theory, building character and leadership in the youth and all that. But people are just to wide of a spectrum to force everyone into military service. Some people will benefit from discipline and direction but others just aren't cut for the military life.
These are obviously estimates in the sidebar, but open state to state war would be a rout, X vs. 1 essentially; however the potential human cost to the North Korean population makes me really nervous.
I think mandatory military enlistment would be like asking yourself if you need to build 10 marines fast in case of a Zergling rush
EDIT: I'm not that familiar with the power and tech level of the Chinese military, but I do believe if they did not have a requirement for all citizens to enlist for two years than their military would probably be weak as hell and they'd be vulnerable to an attack.
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.
In the army, I myself thought getting paid 5$ a day for doing sometimes 24 hour workdays, that it was legal slavery, but looking back I did at least get a lot of new friends, funny stories and frankly, got to do lots of really cool shit I would have never done, and probably never will.
Just a funny fact, Due to being born in germany to a british family (dad was in British Army) he had to sign papers to prevent me having to move back to germany when i was older for Mandatory Enlistment. :D
Huge waste of time and it made dumber if anything. Lost about 100.000 USD in income because of it. Meanwhile the women I went to university with were working and getting paid. Totally fair. If there is some way to avoid it, maybe a made up medical condition or something, you should consider it if you live in one of these asshole countries that make you do military service.
On April 03 2013 00:05 NagAfightinG wrote: Just a funny fact, Due to being born in germany to a british family (dad was in British Army) he had to sign papers to prevent me having to move back to germany when i was older for Mandatory Enlistment. :D
I vaguely remember my mother saying something about this (she was British)... with the Vietnam War raging on and on and would have saved me from a draft I think (assuming the war carried on that long or a new one with a new draft :D).
On April 02 2013 06:59 Hookster wrote: Usually if you have a strong nation, you have good defence willingness. In Finland that is around 80%, which is very high. If it was not mandatory, everybody would not go there. Why? Because when you are 18-20 you are still a kid and you do stupid things. After the service you have good memories about it. Also, sometimes in life you have to do something which is not fun. Get over it.
Edit: and for the conscription picture: it is not the same everywhere. De jure it is "mandatory" in many nations, but rich people buy their way out of it. For example, in México (where I live atm) you can just bribe the officials to skip the service.
It's semi-mandatory. I'm mexican as well, and there's a raffle where a ball is picked. If when your name is called a black ball is pulled, it means you have to be "available" which for the last 50+ years means you forget about it and just pick your papers in a few months. If a white ball is pulled, then you can pick between civil service (mainly take part in alphabetization/reforestation/disaster recovery stuff) or the actual military training on the army or navy once a week for 11 months. The black to other colors ratio is about 10/1
However, I do agree that if a white or blue is pulled, bribing the officer is traditionally resorted by wealthy people, although passing military service is socially regarded as an accomplishment, so they guys that pass through it are generally proud of doing so.
I love how you guys made a game-show out of it. Is the selection-process televised, commentated and girls in bikinis shake their marraccas, while a guy with a mustache and a huge hat shoots two pistols in the air?
I wish! It would get lots more attention if it were like that . Maybe I choosed my wording poorly. What I mean by "raffle" is just a dull bureaucrat in a podium calling names from a list while picking the balls from a huge cardbox. For the pistols part, kinda dangerous considering there's always at least an armed soldier present (maybe for the looks lol?)
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
I am opposed to a mandatory draft. I am not a nationalist in any way and also most wars are just capitalists fighting each other and I dont want to be a mere pawn in their games, my life is way too important for that.
sorry misread first time- I think maybe in south korea is sorta makes sense, if I had north korea breathing down my neck Id want as many people to be trained as possible. Elsewhere in the developed world, I dont think its needed. Maybe as a discipline type of thing instead of prison it could have some uses but that seems a little harsh
I used to believe that everyone should have some amount of mandatory service time because I believed that it gave you a certain sense of responsibility for your country. You are more likely to vote, more likely to care rather than be some apathetic observer watching as your country and the rest of the world flushes itself down the toilet if you have a direct stake (possibly your life). Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seeing the careless way lives are tossed away for foolish things like cheaper gas prices or nonexistent WMDs. I think that most of the people in my generation feel pretty helpless and small. They actually feel a bit like BitByBit's SCV's. Carelessly tossed into the enemy as fodder so that some being (BitByBit) who isn't risking anything can take the glory for their sacrifice. No doubt the world has always been this way and I am seeing it differently as I get older but this is what changed it for me. So I guess, no there should be no mandatory military service.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
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.
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.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
Phew! Big question indeed. I don't think it's the gov's responsibility to do so, but rather parenting (after all, the government should reflect society's values, not the other way around). However I think in the gov's eyes it's not a matter of responsibility, but convenience, specially if sided with nationalistic thoughts. Maybe that could explain both why the Nazis made such a mess, and also why the country was able to reconstruct itself twice in 50 years!.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
different countries do it differently.
The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking.
The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence.
Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between.
I'm surprised so many people seem to be taking the opinion that "if your country might go to war with a neighbour then of course it's ok to force everyone in to a military organisation". I really don't understand that line of thinking.
Call me sexist, but I dont want to see any woman to get stabbed, burned, mutilated, shot, captured or other things that tend to happen in war. Hell it even seems like I hear more of "This is sexists" from males then females.
I think mandatory military service is one of the best things that can happen to young people because it exposes them to valuable lessons.
It teaches you to work in a group under orders. This seems immensely important since a lot of young kids seem to think they are special little snowflakes that everyone have to bend over too. In the real world it does NOT work like that and it's annoying as hell to get people to understand it. People can say what they want about respecting authority but in human society it's a key skill to have even if you hate it.
It teaches you the value of being in time, keeping tidy and doing your fucking job, sometimes with people you HATE.
It also exposes you to completely different people across the spectrum of society. This means you get to know people outside your comfort zone and understand where they are coming from.
Finally it offers some very unpleasant experiences. This is a huge boon in itself. If your about to do something unpleasant it's good to remember that time when you did something x10 as bad. Hotell is shitty with roaches? Ruins my gf's vacation. Me, I'm glad it's not a pinetree in a forrest with ~0 degree temperature and rain. Just a matter of perspective.
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.
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...
On April 03 2013 03:31 Shiori wrote: Absolutely not. I consider war to be the worst sort of immorality; forcing citizens to partake in it against their will is therefore immoral.
The requirements of land ownership is being able to keep your land.
When I buy a house, and people try to break in, I call the cops.
When I live in a country, and people try to break in, I call the military.
Being a cop is not mandatory--neither should being in the army.
Enlistment? Sure, but in conflicts that matter in context. For most first world countries, that would be caring for the poor rather than being forced into the military to defend against an imaginary enemy.
I have no quarrel with people learning life lessons about cooperation in the context of caring for the people in your own country.
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.
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...
Yes, they would indeed overrun most of our major cities. And then it'd be very costly to sustain that because taking the countryside is a whole other issue all together. And that's the entire point, deterrent. I never implied they were planning an invasion, but it's the only threat that exists on any level and is worth planning for and in the past it was at the very least seen as a real threat (See your point about Cold War US).
My entire point was that we've dismantled our military because no real threats exist and the only thing we're planning against would be a sudden resurgance of Russian aggression for whatever reason - and even then we only plan to delay as best we can.
On April 03 2013 04:00 iTzSnypah wrote: Conscription is useless. We are well past the age of conquest.
These days a group of allies with small armies are much more powerful than a nation with a huge army.
huh? what group of allies with small armies could dream of taking on the US Military?
I guess you're one of those people who think Iraq was a very successful war? How about Vietnam? There's a point to be made here. Regardless, "wars" between first world countries are fought by banks and governments playing the economical game. Real wars are too expensive and even small ones (See Afghanistan and Iraq) are generally too costly today in both economical and political terms.
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...
You're absolutely right in that Russia is not a relevant military threat to any Nordic country. In fact, Russia is the highest growing exporting market in Finland, there's plenty of tourism going both ways and Russia represents great economic opportunity for Nordic corporations the way US corporations have benefited from expanding to europe.
The thing is, Russia is the only geologically relevant country that could pose a significant military threat unassisted to the European countries that neighbor it. Northern Europe is geologically very isolated. Staging an invasion via massive landing like normandy is too expensive and not even possible for most countries, and the only way by land to Scandinavia is through Russia and Finland. That means that it's only really possible to stage an invasion in the Nordic countries by having a massive navy or a massive army and the blessing of Russia to roll right through to the border. That excludes hypothetical potential attacks by pretty much every other country except for Russia and the U.S. Further, Norway is a NATO member, which means that the only way the U.S. could possibly stage an invasion to Scandinavia is through the Danish straits, or through Norway. There's not enough space in the Danish straits for a navy, and Norway and Sweden share a very strong cultural bond that would make it unlikely that Norway would agree to an invasion in the first place. That pretty much rules out any hypothetical attacks by the U.S, leaving Russia as the only country in the world with the capability of presenting an actual military threat to Northern Europe outside of nuclear arms.
Now Russia has absolutely no cause whatsoever for a conflict with the Nordics, but it does have the capability to do so if it wanted. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Russia has any plans of being a military threat for Nordics, but I do agree that if you are going to have armed forces at all, it makes sense to model them after responding to your only potential military threat. If that means that the only way we can afford to do so is conscription, then that's what we have to do. The entire purpose is to present a deterrent, and to make a hypothetical attack so costly that it's not worth it. It's not like people in America leave their doors open for the night and invite strangers to come take all their hard earned stuff away from them either. You have a lock as a deterrent to keep people outside your house, but if someone really wants to break in you can't prevent that with a lock.
I don't think any Finnish national expects to one day find themselves being at war with Russia, and that goes for all the other Nordics as well.
huh? what group of allies with small armies could dream of taking on the US Military?[/QUOTE]
I guess you're one of those people who think Iraq was a very successful war? How about Vietnam? There's a point to be made here. Regardless, "wars" between first world countries are fought by banks and governments playing the economical game. Real wars are too expensive and even small ones (See Afghanistan and Iraq) are generally too costly today in both economical and political terms.[/QUOTE]
Iraq and Vietnam was a very successful "war" it was the occupation part that sucked.
The problem with wars outside your soil is that "winning" it requires that people stop hating you once you've killed off their army. Beating Iraq's army was EASY. Trying to get all of iraq to be cool with our invasion--not so much.
No army on earth can beat the US army right now in a straight up fight. But no nation on earth will ever be "oh you beat our army, I guess we love you now."
It's hard enough to get people to enjoy saying gg after losing a game of sc2--try getting a nation to respect us after we shove the military industrial complex up their complex.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
different countries do it differently.
The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking.
The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence.
Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between.
What do you mean? Majority of americans think it's better to live off welfare and the own bootstraps thing are being demonized.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
different countries do it differently.
The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking.
The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence.
Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between.
What do you mean? Majority of americans think it's better to live off welfare and the own bootstraps thing are being demonized.
This isn't the 50s anymore.
I guess you missed the part where I said "media and political efforts"
Nations who conscript are not filled with pro war nuts much like the US with Fox News is not filled with conservative bigots.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
different countries do it differently.
The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking.
The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence.
Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between.
What do you mean? Majority of americans think it's better to live off welfare and the own bootstraps thing are being demonized.
This isn't the 50s anymore.
I guess you missed the part where I said "media and political efforts"
Nations who conscript are not filled with pro war nuts much like the US with Fox News is not filled with conservative bigots.
What I mean is it's the opposite of what the media and political efforts are saying.
On April 02 2013 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised tbh, TL seems very cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic at times, but in this thread the consensus seems to be that this is a good/necessary things.
Also, for those saying that their service was beneficial/'taught discipline' etc, I don't disagree but can some of you expand on what you mean? There's an interesting discussion to be had, I for one don't think that accepting orders and working hard are necessarily inherently good things.
On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc.
On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't.
I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution.
You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens.
Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing?
different countries do it differently.
The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking.
The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence.
Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between.
What do you mean? Majority of americans think it's better to live off welfare and the own bootstraps thing are being demonized.
This isn't the 50s anymore.
I guess you missed the part where I said "media and political efforts"
Nations who conscript are not filled with pro war nuts much like the US with Fox News is not filled with conservative bigots.
What I mean is it's the opposite of what the media and political efforts are saying.
I agree with that
Much like most countries that do conscription are not in any direct danger yet. Which is why I thought the comparison was apt.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't this be better done by simply increasing the requirements for passing physical education courses in school?
In other words, have the goal of physical education classes be regimented discipline and physical exertion? So say, instead "let's play a sport" it is instead doing marches, push-ups, sports every now and then, constant focus on regulation and grading people based on performance and discipline.
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 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 07:05 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 =/
I mean, if I was to advocate any sort of programme, it would just be some kind of civic/military training for those on unemployment benefit. Essentially, they work for their benefits, and they get something to do to ease the sometimes incredibly depressing existence that that entails.
Otherwise, I don't see how forcing people to put off studying/travelling or whatever they wish to do for a year, if they have the means to do and make them do some kind of mandatory service.
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 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 07:05 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.
You guys do kinda know that its the 21st century now right? NK has the third largest standing force, but who is afraid? the whole world doesn't care until NK developes nukes because technology wins wars and not numbers.
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 agree with this sentiment, and that's why I think it should be some kind of generic public service. The benefits of something similar to military service are that it applies to the entire citizenry regardless of social, ethnic, or other standing. Every citizen is forced to work together without regards to anything but their nationality. This is of huge benefit to all the citizens involved, as it breaks down barriers and actively works towards egalitarian goals. That's why I'd support such an end.
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.
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.
You are speaking from ignorance. I am from one of the few countries in the world that has forced conscription (2years full time+ 10+years on standby).
Yes this is years of my life taken from me by law that I cant get back, but the benefits we get from it is intangible. There's the friends & buddies that i make during my NS life, there's the life experience of doing military things that civilian wont get to do.
How could you quantify our time spent in service of our nations as playing an adult version of boyscouts. If you have no idea what is it like in a military life, please do not speak up like you know what we do.
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.
Yeah military service is to straighten up hippies like you
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.
You are speaking from ignorance. I am from one of the few countries in the world that has forced conscription (2years full time+ 10+years on standby).
Yes this is years of my life taken from me by law that I cant get back, but the benefits we get from it is intangible. There's the friends & buddies that i make during my NS life, there's the life experience of doing military things that civilian wont get to do.
How could you quantify our time spent in service of our nations as playing an adult version of boyscouts. If you have no idea what is it like in a military life, please do not speak up like you know what we do.
Maybe he's speaking from his friend's experience. Like I posted already, 2 good friends of mine consider 1 year in the military as a complete and unpleasant waste of time. And I have no reason to not believe them at all. Oh and they don't know anyone from their company (or whatever it's called there) and never wanted to.
And I don't need to experience those things by myself, I'll be a civilian with work, gf and few useless hobbies such as gaming. I'm not gonna cry about some things I never will experience in military or somewhere else. Why? Because it's just not something I want to do/spend my life on.
So yes, in my eyes it's the same as the slave labor. I have nothing against those who are willing to serve though. But it's a big difference, doing something you chose to or being forced to do it. Almost like a sex vs rape difference.
Anyway, that discussion always ends the same way. "You're weaklings, army will make you a man" type of guys vs "it's a total waste of time and I'll/did anything to avoid it" ones. It's hard to both of those types to understand each other. We have a completely different opinion on that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You are speaking from ignorance. I am from one of the few countries in the world that has forced conscription (2years full time+ 10+years on standby).
Yes this is years of my life taken from me by law that I cant get back, but the benefits we get from it is intangible. There's the friends & buddies that i make during my NS life, there's the life experience of doing military things that civilian wont get to do.
How could you quantify our time spent in service of our nations as playing an adult version of boyscouts. If you have no idea what is it like in a military life, please do not speak up like you know what we do.
You make friends doing anything that involves groups of people - especially in college, which is what you'd be doing otherwise.
The 'life experience' applies to doing anything out of normal routines.
Comparing it to an adult version of UYOs is probably the best comparison there is tbh.
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?
A.) That would be awesome B.) Suicide rates would go up C.) Evolution would be sped up as selective breeding intensifies D.) .......
But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against 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?
You are right now telling me that you are insulted and that it should somehow matter to me - guess what: It doesn't, nor is it an argument that holds any value whatsoever.
Furthermore, why in the world do you take personal offence to criticism of a system? And do you actually have any arguments besides ad hominems?
You know nothing about me!
You might have served in Canada, but have you ever seen what a roadside bomb does to a person? To his family? To his friends? Through my work as an M.D. I have helped patch these kids up, so don't you dare come here and try to lecture me about how I base my opinions on what I have seen in movies.
You know NOTHING about me!
I can quote members of the royal guard from Denmark, have been stationed on Balkan, in Afghanistan in the Helmand-province, and in Iraq who will also agree with my sentiment that the conscription based army is an archaic system for western civilizations (note I did not say it was an archaic society, but I guess your were so busy with being insulted that actually comprehending what was written took too long for you?). You bring up South Korea (but for some reason not Israel) - and even for those countries I am willing to argue that a conscription based army is wasted. A modern army can be run by a fairly small, professional outfit and in regions where there are no threat of attacks like North America and Europe it makes zero sense to throw money away by having conscriptions.
You are advocating to rob EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN of their freedom for a year with the best argument being it teaches you discipline - as if rectifying poor parenthood for a few somehow justifies the suppression of human rights for everyone.
My opinion is neither extreme, nor ignorant. Bring some actual arguments to the table to justify robbing everyone of a year of their lives or go away.
EDIT: To the others repeating that I must be speaking from ignorance: No! See above. And stop the ad hominems and bring some arguments: What exactly is to be gained from the army which 1 year of any other activity won't gain you? Why do you believe it is okay to rob people of choice of how to live?
EDIT2: I apologize for the comparison @Wombat - I actually used to be a scout as kid and leader of a group as a teenager. I even plan on being it again when I settle down more permanently so it was not with a light heart I wrote the comparison :p
EDIT3: @ The poster above me: Personally it is for me an opposition to being told what to do with my life. I would rather spend that year or 6 months (which will still effectively be 1 year seeing how enrollment to universities are typically yearly) on bettering myself on a trade/skillset of my own choice.
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?
A.) That would be awesome B.) Suicide rates would go up C.) Evolution would be sped up as selective breeding intensifies D.) .......
But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against war?
Just general dislike of nationalism for me.
I'm for making people do some kind of civic duty for welfare. From a purely personal experience it is so depressing beig on the unemployment scrap heap. Would destigmatise 'benefit scroungers' a little into the bargain
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?
A.) That would be awesome B.) Suicide rates would go up C.) Evolution would be sped up as selective breeding intensifies D.) .......
But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against war?
Just general dislike of nationalism for me.
I'm for making people do some kind of civic duty for welfare. From a purely personal experience it is so depressing beig on the unemployment scrap heap. Would destigmatise 'benefit scroungers' a little into the bargain
Its just a curiosity for me. Living in the US I don't have to deal with it, and so its a purely theoretical thing for me. I don't see why it would be useful for first world countries--but that doesn't mean its bad.
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?
A.) That would be awesome B.) Suicide rates would go up C.) Evolution would be sped up as selective breeding intensifies D.) .......
But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against war?
Just general dislike of nationalism for me.
I'm for making people do some kind of civic duty for welfare. From a purely personal experience it is so depressing beig on the unemployment scrap heap. Would destigmatise 'benefit scroungers' a little into the bargain
Its just a curiosity for me. Living in the US I don't have to deal with it, and so its a purely theoretical thing for me. I don't see why it would be useful for first world countries--but that doesn't mean its bad.
It's the compulsory part that is bad. Then, there's the male only part, which makes it even worse. And no, luckily we don't have to deal with it in Canada neither.
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?
A.) That would be awesome B.) Suicide rates would go up C.) Evolution would be sped up as selective breeding intensifies D.) .......
But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against war?
Just general dislike of nationalism for me.
I'm for making people do some kind of civic duty for welfare. From a purely personal experience it is so depressing beig on the unemployment scrap heap. Would destigmatise 'benefit scroungers' a little into the bargain
Its just a curiosity for me. Living in the US I don't have to deal with it, and so its a purely theoretical thing for me. I don't see why it would be useful for first world countries--but that doesn't mean its bad.
It's the compulsory part that is bad. Then, there's the male only part, which makes it even worse. And no, luckily we don't have to deal with it in Canada neither.
Its not always male only--girls do it in Israel to, and I'm assuming other countries as well. But yeah, I just can't wrap my mind fully on the compulsory part. If they really want able bodied men to be fit enough for war--couldn't they just make that be a physical education class in high school? (Or equivalent)
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?
A.) That would be awesome B.) Suicide rates would go up C.) Evolution would be sped up as selective breeding intensifies D.) .......
But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against war?
Just general dislike of nationalism for me.
I'm for making people do some kind of civic duty for welfare. From a purely personal experience it is so depressing beig on the unemployment scrap heap. Would destigmatise 'benefit scroungers' a little into the bargain
Its just a curiosity for me. Living in the US I don't have to deal with it, and so its a purely theoretical thing for me. I don't see why it would be useful for first world countries--but that doesn't mean its bad.
It's the compulsory part that is bad. Then, there's the male only part, which makes it even worse. And no, luckily we don't have to deal with it in Canada neither.
Its not always male only--girls do it in Israel to, and I'm assuming other countries as well. But yeah, I just can't wrap my mind fully on the compulsory part. If they really want able bodied men to be fit enough for war--couldn't they just make that be a physical education class in high school? (Or equivalent)
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.
Mandatory service was still real in France 10 or 15yr ago (it was completly removed since). I never met a person that did something useful there.
All the experiences from mandatory service from my father and older cousins were: -You do stupid shit for 6months to 1.5 year (cousin was 6months, father was 1.5yr) -You learn to smoke... a lot.
And then you have my older brother (+17yr than me) that left the country, and study abroad, at 18, partially to avoid it
The idealized version where you learn self defense, how to shoot and save whatever is just not something real (maybe it is in some countries that are really threaten however).
So no.
On the other hand I have childhood friend, that joined the military. And are happy with it. The problem is the mandatory part.
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.
I believe it should be required and anyone who is truly interested can PM and I'll write a lengthy response to your questions. I don't have the time right now to write my response.
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.
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.
All the physical training received vanes rather quickly, resulting in only a few "cycles" of conscribers being really useful for active duty. In fact that training could probably be done so quickly that should a war break out it would be possible to train all the needed amateur soldiers quickly enough for the peace-time conscription to have made little difference.
Thus you are effectively arguing that in exchange for minor (if any) military gains you are willing to institute modern day slavery. This is ignoring the economic and technological stifling that slowing down everyones education with 1 year is going to impose on a country. And in this day and age, wars are won by largely due to economy and tech, and the amount of people that can be fielded matters less and less.
Call that ignorant if you must - I call it rational and scientifically backed up. You are welcome to pull out the argument of citizens privilege and the ancient romans (a romantic notion I am not entirely in disagreement with), but we live in a vastly different time now and a citizens privilege is really more about paying his/hers taxes on time.
Technology wins modern wars, not soldiers. If you really want to help defend your country, skip the army enlistment and go to university instead and take engineering or something that leads to furthering technology, then get into a weapons development research department. Your individual value when it comes to defending your country will be worth over 100 out of high school infantry grunts in modern warfare. There's also the benefit of being ahead in your career and able to help your country in other ways as well. Ways that are much more useful anyway.
Also, I find the arguments about making enlistment mandatory not for combat reasons, but for discipline reasons, pretty ridiculous. I don't disagree with the idea itself, but using the army for that is just silly. If we're going to force people into doing something just to train them in things like discipline, there are much better things they could be doing while learning that and methods that are much more efficient than the army. Not to mention more useful - both in terms of to society and training them for living in modern society.
Just had a talk to my father about it, as he done 1 year compulsory service when he finished school. He said that at the time he felt the training was useless and a waste of time, but in the end it did teach him to be a more disciplined, respectable citizen.
One of the main things he talked about was how it taught teamwork and equality, saying how when you go into the training they take people from all levels of society, from the lowest of the low to the professionals and throw them all into one group. And from there they broke you all down to the same level through the training, and then slowly built them up, teaching respect, discipline and fitness.
The main story he keeps telling me whenever I ask him about this, which I do quite often is one about how they were forced to just run laps all the time. He told me that he was one of the fittest there and that he would always finish first, and that he would stand around waiting for the slower ones to finish. When they last person came the instructor would look at the time, call it shit and they would all have to run again, and they done this over and over. Eventually they found that the time wasn't based on the fastest person, but the slowest and that in the end they had the fittest people literally dragging the slowest people by their belts so that their feet were barely contacting the ground.
Overall he said that it taught him to look at things in the bigger picture, and not in the moment. Saying that the compulsory service which at the time seemed useless and unnecessary, turned out to be one of the most important things in his life which shaped who he is.
Im from country that had Mandatory Military for a long time. I think it should be done in war time only and maybe 4 years after the war. There are so many things that can make you THE MAN (But well do we really want to be all alfa wolfs ?) and you dont have to waste 2 years in army. I think that science is much more important right now.
But is it too late to go for mandatory military system when there is war already all over the place ? NO ! We have pro army and its all we need. as long as we dont find stargates
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.
Civic duty, don't make me laugh. The only think mandatory military service did in my country was complete disdain for military. Here members of military are consider "green-brains", meaning complete idiots. I am not saying that mandatory military service did that as most professional members of military everywhere are exactly that. But it made it pretty clear to people as everyone had direct experience with them through the conscription.
I see absolutely no point in wasting 1+ years of my life following orders of some idiot with love for power. Want to strenghten civic duty, fix corruption, fix public services,.... that will make people feel that they actually have civic duty.
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.
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.
You are speaking from ignorance. I am from one of the few countries in the world that has forced conscription (2years full time+ 10+years on standby).
Yes this is years of my life taken from me by law that I cant get back, but the benefits we get from it is intangible. There's the friends & buddies that i make during my NS life, there's the life experience of doing military things that civilian wont get to do.
How could you quantify our time spent in service of our nations as playing an adult version of boyscouts. If you have no idea what is it like in a military life, please do not speak up like you know what we do.
Then make it voluntary so people like you can join and others do not. How can you quantify how big of a waste of time it is for people who do not share your subjective criteria.
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.
fun fact: in germany, members of the armed forces are more likely to have weight problems than the general public. this is because the military consists mostly of people with a lower education who are less likely to think about their eating habits and because the military is there to fight, kill and get shot. if there isnt anything to fight you just got thousands of guys sitting on their asses doing nothing but wasting money. this is also the reason why the military helps in cases of natural disasters. they got the manpower to send hundreds of people to the scene and do basic stuff you do not need any special skills for whatsoever.
to stay on topic: i see MMS as pretty useless. it does not matter if it is a forced time in the military or forced time in civil service. the nature of forced labour (thats what it is) is that you have people do things they are neither trained nor motivated for and just try to circumvent as much work as possible. with young adults there is the advantage that they often are not sure what they want to do with their lives and they are eager to learn and try new things. this is why the german civil service (8 month in a charitable organization) worked and why the idea to have unemployed people do the same things got dismissed rather quickly. but after all there is nothing to be gained from a year of forced labour. people argue you learn self discipline, to deal with (stupid) people or respect authorities. but i would say you learn the first anyway once you go to university or start working and the third is just plain terrible to learn. we dont need people respect some random guys because they hold a certain position, we need people who question authorities and make them reevaluate their actions and beliefs at all times.
I think it is rather simple. If there are reasons to believe that your country could suddenly be attacked by another nation, e.g, Ethiopia, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel then you probably want to have compulsory military service. If this is not the case then you probably don´t need it.
About the people saying that you learn nothing during military service... I think you did something wrong.
I did military service for 15 months in a recon platoon. Sure some days were literary the worst days of my life. I do however recognize that I would never have gotten a similar experience anywhere else. You learn discipline, to master your emotions,function under extreme conditions and work in groups although everything is turned to shit. People that have not undergone military training fail in most of these aspects and I saw it happen a lot initially during my military training.
Thought I would illustrate this with the first time I had a "forest week". We were supposed to raise a tent camp. When we started we had been walking no stop with full gear for about 30 hours without any food or sleep. It was around 2-3 degree Celsius and the rain was pouring down, the time was about 21:00. The place where we were supposed to raise our camp was slowly turning into a swamp and within an hour it was pitch black. Twice we started to raise the camp and twice our lieutenant told us that we failed so bad at raising the camp we had to take down everything and start from scratch. When the time was 02:00 our lieutenant told us to start over for a third time and by now there was a lot of cold anger in the air.
The morale was smashed, people were crying, sitting apathetically in the swamp waiting for the sun to come up and one guy started to jab with his knife when his group chief tried to give him an order. At 03:30 we had managed to raise 2 out of 5 tents, because people lost all the equipment as they were completely fatigued and things vanished in the darkness or just sank down in the swamp. We went into the tents and slept 40 guys in tents that were meant for about ~15 people. At 05:30 we got orders to raise the camp. I was fucking tired, cold, soaked, hungry and every muscle in my body was hurting. By now I also had salt crystals forming in my skin which makes it feel like someone is twisting your skin every time you bend something. To say that it sucked to grab my gear at 06:00 and start doing another 30km forest terrain walk is an understatement to what I felt then.
So what is the point of this? The point is to make you hard and master of your emotions. The situation was turned to shit because our platoon failed and everyone paid for it. Everyone was so tired, cold and hungry that they could no longer control their emotions. People acted egoistically, the morale fails and thereafter everything else. People see the cost of failing as a group and realized it is not an option. You become harder physically and mentally and you learn to work together no matter what happens. In a matter of a few weeks the difference in the state of minds and efficiency of the platoon was staggering.
If nothing else, I learned that morale and ethics is only as strong as your emotional control. Saying that you should be generous, nice and loving when living a comfortable first world life is easy. Doing it when things are turned to shit is quite another matter. Many people change when reality turns to shit. For myself I am normally relatively quiet guy, a bit like Morrow, but that night I was fucking mad. I told a guy to help me dig a hole for the foundation of the tent and when he just wandered of I grabbed him and punched him in the face. Told him I would smash him down the swamp if didn’t help me raise this fucking tent.
So I say you learn a lot of things about people, the world and yourself doing military service that you most probably will never know otherwise. Also I went from a skinny guy on 67 kg (182cm) to 84 kg in two months, which is a bonus ^^
On April 03 2013 20:14 4ZakeN87 wrote: I think it is rather simple. If there are reasons to believe that your country could suddenly be attacked by another nation, e.g, Ethiopia, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel then you probably want to have compulsory military service. If this is not the case then you probably don´t need it.
About the people saying that you learn nothing during military service... I think you did something wrong.
I did military service for 15 months in a recon platoon. Sure some days were literary the worst days of my life. I do however recognize that I would never have gotten a similar experience anywhere else. You learn discipline, to master your emotions,function under extreme conditions and work in groups although everything is turned to shit. People that have not undergone military training fail in most of these aspects and I saw it happen a lot initially during my military training.
Thought I would illustrate this with the first time I had a "forest week". We were supposed to raise a tent camp. When we started we had been walking no stop with full gear for about 30 hours without any food or sleep. It was around 2-3 degree Celsius and the rain was pouring down, the time was about 21:00. The place where we were supposed to raise our camp was slowly turning into a swamp and within an hour it was pitch black. Twice we started to raise the camp and twice our lieutenant told us that we failed so bad at raising the camp we had to take down everything and start from scratch. When the time was 02:00 our lieutenant told us to start over for a third time and by now there was a lot of cold anger in the air.
The morale was smashed, people were crying, sitting apathetically in the swamp waiting for the sun to come up and one guy started to jab with his knife when his group chief tried to give him an order. At 03:30 we had managed to raise 2 out of 5 tents, because people lost all the equipment as they were completely fatigued and things vanished in the darkness or just sank down in the swamp. We went into the tents and slept 40 guys in tents that were meant for about ~15 people. At 05:30 we got orders to raise the camp. I was fucking tired, cold, soaked, hungry and every muscle in my body was hurting. By now I also had salt crystals forming in my skin which makes it feel like someone is twisting your skin every time you bend something. To say that it sucked to grab my gear at 06:00 and start doing another 30km forest terrain walk is an understatement to what I felt then.
So what is the point of this? The point is to make you hard and master of your emotions. The situation was turned to shit because our platoon failed and everyone paid for it. Everyone was so tired, cold and hungry that they could no longer control their emotions. People acted egoistically, the morale fails and thereafter everything else. People see the cost of failing as a group and realized it is not an option. You become harder physically and mentally and you learn to work together no matter what happens. In a matter of a few weeks the difference in the state of minds and efficiency of the platoon was staggering.
If nothing else, I learned that morale and ethics is only as strong as your emotional control. Saying that you should be generous, nice and loving when living a comfortable first world life is easy. Doing it when things are turned to shit is quite another matter. Many people change when reality turns to shit. For myself I am normally relatively quiet guy, a bit like Morrow, but that night I was fucking mad. I told a guy to help me dig a hole for the foundation of the tent and when he just wandered of I grabbed him and punched him in the face. Told him I would smash him down the swamp if didn’t help me raise this fucking tent.
So I say you learn a lot of things about people, the world and yourself doing military service that you most probably will never know otherwise. Also I went from a skinny guy on 67 kg (182cm) to 84 kg in two months, which is a bonus ^^
It is not that you learn nothing, it is the question whether it is worth it and if your time cannot be spent in better ways.
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.
I was sad to see that still no-one has answered the question I posed earier in this thread, could someone please explain how being in a potential war situation makes it OK to force the unwilling in to a military organisation to be ready to fight for something theyre not willing to fight for? If the way things are is worth protecting, people will protect it without you arbitrarily deciding you get to control someone's life for a period.
In addition, even many of the supporters of forced involvement with a military organisation agree that it's not beneficial for everyone...so why force it on everyone? Offer an incentive and those who will benefit from it will still probably make use of it.
On April 03 2013 13:16 Thieving Magpie wrote: But seriously though, would people be as against government service if it was outside the military?
Say when they are 18 they need to serve as a congressional staff in order for the people of a country to know how their country is run. Or what if it is mandatory 6 months of being an intern at wall-street. Or 6 months/year at wherever in order to serve your country.
Is the problem against national service or is the problem against war?
I would have less of a problem with it if it wasn't a military organisation. I still think it is unfair to simply decide the country gets to own a person for a while, and it certainly shouldn't be in otherwise paid positions (such as the wall street example). If I'd been forced to spend time assisting the elderly for 6 months or something in the community, contrary to joining a military organisation, I wouldn't have such vehement opposition.
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.
Unless its war time, or like people are saying you live in a country that the threat of war is almost always there then no, i don't think mandatory is needed
On April 03 2013 20:38 Iyerbeth wrote: I was sad to see that still no-one has answered the question I posed earier in this thread, could someone please explain how being in a potential war situation makes it OK to force the unwilling in to a military organisation to be ready to fight for something theyre not willing to fight for? If the way things are is worth protecting, people will protect it without you arbitrarily deciding you get to control someone's life for a period.
I think that in that kind of situation, youd probably want to be trained for war, don't you think?
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.
norwegian airforce conscript reporting. i enjoyed my time. i have never had better mates than my roomies, i have never done more stupid stuff and gotten away with it. i have never been a more agressive driver than in our munitions/countermeasures car. (entire trunk full of flares, time to attempt to take a 360 on a slightly icy taxyway) i have never been in better physical shape, i have never been more virile (the women were called field mattresses, and for good reason) i have never been more drunk than when a bunch of us went to prague. i have never had more time to play starcraft, with a good conscience. i have never been more immersed in a pretend game than during our urban warfare training. i have never regreted taking a year, to have the time of my life. the norwegian airforce is a paid, year long summercamp.
On April 03 2013 20:38 Iyerbeth wrote: I was sad to see that still no-one has answered the question I posed earier in this thread, could someone please explain how being in a potential war situation makes it OK to force the unwilling in to a military organisation to be ready to fight for something theyre not willing to fight for? If the way things are is worth protecting, people will protect it without you arbitrarily deciding you get to control someone's life for a period.
I think that in that kind of situation, youd probably want to be trained for war, don't you think?
I wouldn't, since I wouldn't go out and fight*. If people were inclined to do so, then I imagine thy will have already elected to go and get training. The important thing should be to ensure that those who elect to aren't penalised in any way for the time they lose, not to force everyone in to it so everyone is penalised.
Edit: * Except in the case of a threat from a neo-nazi government or something similar, where I would elect to get trained if it were available. Fortunately that seems unlikely in the near future. I would still stand against anyone being forced to though.
On April 03 2013 20:38 Iyerbeth wrote: I was sad to see that still no-one has answered the question I posed earier in this thread, could someone please explain how being in a potential war situation makes it OK to force the unwilling in to a military organisation to be ready to fight for something theyre not willing to fight for? If the way things are is worth protecting, people will protect it without you arbitrarily deciding you get to control someone's life for a period.
I think that in that kind of situation, youd probably want to be trained for war, don't you think?
I wouldn't, since I wouldn't go out and fight*. If people were inclined to do so, then I imagine thy will have already elected to go and get training. The important thing should be to ensure that those who elect to aren't penalised in any way for the time they lose, not to force everyone in to it so everyone is penalised.
Edit: * Except in the case of a threat from a neo-nazi government or something similar, where I would elect to get trained if it were available. Fortunately that seems unlikely in the near future. I would still stand against anyone being forced to though.
Never know till youre actually in the situation tbh.
On April 03 2013 20:37 hfglgg wrote: sounds more like abussive shit without achieving any usefull skill at all :|
I have been there and done that. The primary useful skill in civil society you learn is first aid and some random housekeeping stuff.
Most of the rest of the useful skills are distributed almost randomly. Many get a drivers license for trucks, some get mini truck certificates, some get basic nurse courses. A lot of people get some useful civil abilities out of it, but the basic problem is that they have little say in what they get! Military service has changed here from a test of your limits to a normal job. I was never completely at my limits while serving and I know that the later rules have made it even easier to pass whatever they throw at you!
When it comes to conscription I don't think anyone really needs it. The army has more than enough volunteers and very few gets anything really unique and useful for their future out of it unless they really want to make a career out of it. Here, conscription is part of the constitution, making it impossible to completely remove. Most parties have accepted a "temporary suspension" to remove the conscription as a workaround, but well, the conservative right (DPP) holds the constitution sacred so that noone can change it and with their surge after gay marriage being legalized, they are closing in on 20% and therefore a 100% chance of blocking any changes to the constitution...
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with such a gray area as "times of war" is that definitions of "times of war" will change as policies change.
A strict stance on one or the other is the only way to know for certain where you'll end up. For example, if the US instated a draft during iraq because it was a "time of war" the whole of europe would have laughed at us.
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.
You assume I'm all hunky dory with education in this country. Needs root and branch reform, but alas.
I don't need physical and mental fitness improvements, I am an adonis I don't care for team-building exercises with strangers, done against my will. It might be a beneficial experience, it might be fun, and deeply mentally rewarding but forcing me to do something just doesn't sit well with me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have a question for those whole live in countries when enlistment is mandatory:what happens if you refuse? I personally follow George Carlin's idea, 'war is poor young men fighting over rich old men's property. Therefore, whatever the reason for a war would be, I refuse going to battle and killing other people. Thankfully, I'm training to be a doctor, and in the worst case scenario I would probably be forced to treat the wounded.
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.
1 Year of your life ? You are talking like the get you inside a cage inhibiting your senses. That's far from the truth. There are positive aspects and there are negative aspects. Yes there is bullshit sometimes, but there are also positive experiences.
Your argument about corruption, you can say the same about everything in life. Money pays for stuff, there is nothing new, and what you are speaking about is a sympton of the underlying problem that is corruption, not corruption itself brought by that system. Or we could talk about "paid" soldiers who pay a doctor to seem unfit of service for a long period of time while still getting his checks at the end of the month.
I agree that if your country doesn't have any hostile neighbour is not really needed, but i also believe many angsty teens or manchilds could use some of the discipline, empathy about who surround him and fly out of under their parent's wings for awhile to be outside of their comfort zone.
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.
if the military would be mental fitness in any shape or form, members of the military wouldnt be on the lower end of the society :/ militaries in all parts of the world are a home for people who dont have access to higher education, be it because they dont have the financial support or are just stupid. in germany its almoste exlusively the latter. in fact as the government stopped the conscription, one official of the german military said that they already had troubles getting personnal for the higher ranks because only very few germans with the highest degree you can get in school (abitur).
people overestimating the positive influence of the army by far. i mean you are in a group of young men and the last thing what lots of young men of the same age are doing is anything usefull or even slighty responsible. of the three people i call friends who did the MMS, 2 got injured. one broke his leg and he cant remember how because he was drunk as fuck and the other one woke up in a hospital with an alcohol poisoning. the third started to smoke. thats neither discipline nor healthy and just stupid, but sadly its pretty standard.
oh and from the 2 guys i know who are soldiers, one is overweight :D
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.
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.
In archaic, pre-Solonian Athens, the concept of citizenship was tightly bound to the ability of the citizen to furnish military duty. During the period of Draconian laws, the ability of the citizen to furnish his own military equipment for service was the major condition of political enfranchisement. Citizens of extraordinary prosperity who could furnish their own horses would be integrated into the cavalry.
The main objection the ancient world had to the maintenance of professional armies had always been political. Whether with the Peisistratids in Athens, or with Hippocrates, the last tyrant of Syracuse, or in the late Roman Republic/Empire, the prevalence of mercenary armies had always been associated with despotic regimes, political instability or both.
The early-American fear of 'standing armies' was derived from the political precepts of Montesquieu, who wrote in the Spirit of the Laws, and in which you can see man of the germs of the 1789 Constitution:
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 00:14 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.
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.
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.
Saying that you would learn nothing useful is simply your own biased speculation and I think you overestimate the dramatic effects on peoples lives and careers that delaying employment/further education by 1 year would have (it's basically a gap year, it's not a big deal at all) whilst severely underestimating the potential benefits of such an experience.
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.
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.
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.
It takes but a read through of this thread to disprove that though, regardless of you stating it. Military training (rather than physical training) is military training for a reason. Yes, they can't usually physically force you to fight, but the expectation is you're trained in case they want you to. It's why the arguement of "but our neighbour is aggressive" is used at all.
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.
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 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.
If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you.
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 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.
If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you.
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.
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.
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.
If you read page 8 onwards the current discussion following on from this post will perhaps make a little more sense to you.
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.
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.
I think I'd agree with (and more or less have no issue with) everything you've written there. The key, I think, is to make sure that it's contributing to society and not the other way round (in addition to ensuring no one is forced to join or perform ethically dubious ventures).
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8y5ct4n.png)
There shouldn't be a profession in which you kill people, and it shouldn't be voluntary. If you gonna wage wars it should be important enough that you are willing and able to force people to do it.
