Mandatory Military Service

Do you think the United States should adopt a policy of mandatory military service for men and women once they are out of high school? Have everyone serve 2 years and then decide if they want to go to college/university or continue on with serving? Why or why not?

 

No, such a system is in principle well-intentioned chattel slavery.


That said, I have no opposition to choosing to join the military of my own accord. In a few years when I am at a compatible stage of my career I will join the reserves.

I do think it such mandatory service would have a positive effect on many young people. But that's not the proper role of government in a free society.

 

If they want free college they should do this.

 

That's a good idea, IMO. Keep all the "nothing's free" types quiet, and doesn't seem like a whole lot to ask as long as other types of service besides military are options. Try to make the service meaningful too, not just make work.
.
Mandated service is not. You can't get good work out of slaves and that's what conscripts are, no more and no less. A government has to be careful of how much it asks from its citizens when all it pays are platitudes.

 

I tend to think that mandatory military service is useful for little countries without consolidated military alliances on which to count. For example Israel and Switzerland have got mandatory military service.

Before of coming to the Italian experience and developing my reasoning about mandatory military service for big countries, I would underline that the Swiss model see also the active population participating to periodical military drills to update their preparation. I would say that the Swiss people is a "combat ready people".

In Israel to serve in the IDF is mandatory for men and women as well. In Switzerland women can join the Army on voluntary base.

Now the Italian experience:

until 90's here the serve in the Army was mandatory for all young men after the High School. It took a year and after the initial training [c/o a "CAR", Recruits Training Center, a real nightmare!] the soldiers had sent to their ranks and assigned to a barrack where they served for the remaining 11 months.

The situation was simple: Italy had an obsolete, too wide, inefficient and very expensive Army.

We live no more in the age of the mass armies. And it's a couple of decades that in Italy the military service [for men and women] is no more mandatory. Today we've got a more little, but efficient professional Army with better equipment and increased capabilities of intervention.

The main problem with mandatory military service was that a large part of the 11 months of active service was useless, boring, a real time waste [and a waste of money for the Republic!].

So, on the base of the Italian experience [being 44 I've lived the passage from a situation to the other] I can say that the mandatory military service is not so useful for a great country with the resources to organize an efficient professional Army.

 

Of course the USA should have mandatory military service for all citizens.

The social contract between the citizen and state should require that all citizens demonstrate their loyalty to the state by contributing service to the nation. National service does not need to be military. We should also have public service for those that are not suited to military service. Even a low skilled unemployed worker that is not suitable for the military can contribute to the state by being part of national public works to improve infrastructure for example. Low skilled workers can contribute to to the state by working unskilled services jobs such as drivers or retail/food attendants and of course this work can be utilized by public-private enterprises or wherever the need may be.

Since the state offers the security of welfare to the unemployed it is only fair that in exchange the long term unemployed citizen contributes at least a number of months of national public service per year. You should have an option to be able to meet your national service obligations through tax contributions to the state but certainly for the unemployed we must require that they contribute a number of months of either military or public national service per year for them to maintain their citizenship.

The typical US citizen is far too interested in their 'rights' but they need to understand that freedom belongs to the state. The only rights that you are born with are the rights granted to you by the protection and security of the state. If the citizen will not or cannot contribute to the protection and security of the nation through military national services then of course the state must offer the citizen other national service options so that the citizen can meet their citizenship responsibilities and obligations.

We are moving toward a world that will have many low skilled workers that will not be employable on a full-time basis and most of these people will be paying no taxes and contributing nothing but burden to the state. Automation is going to make many worker essentially obsolete. These people must be required to contribute to the state and non-military national service is the solution. We are moving toward a cashless society and we need to start with those on welfare by giving them Basics Cards that can be used at business that are partnered with the state - like Tesla for example, or Malmart maybe. So instead of giving unsold food to charity like they are forcing business to do in places like France we have the people use their Basics Cards to purchase their basic needs and this should include a small amount for entertainment each week. In exchange for the Basics Card the citizen needs to contribute a certain number of months of national service each year - which is more than fair. These low skilled workers may be able to be used by some of the companies that have partnered with the state on the basics cards scheme to meet their yearly National Service requirements. See this kills this crazy idea of leftists wanting a so-called 'living wage' for those that are unemployed. The state should not and cannot hand out free lunches - but it protects the lunch of the citizen that has earned and deserves their lunch - and all citizens can contribute something. Once we have established this system we will no longer look down on the unemployed as being lazy or useless but instead we will respect that they are contributing to the state and to the nations security by acting as our reserves and important members of the team. The unemployed do have value and we can value them.

USA already has a card welfare system in place so all that really needs to be done is to sway public opinion in favour of the idea that a citizenship comes with obligations and responsibilities. Deep down Americans know to ask not what their nation can do for them but what they can do for their nation so it shouldnt be hard despite the traditional libertarian mentality of USA. It is already popular opinion that citizenship comes with responsibilities and obligations and if not for Vietnam USA would probably still be able to draft citizens into national service so requiring the unemployed for starters to contribute a certain amount of months of non-military national service should be something that the majority of citizens already agree with.

 

No.
The conscripts have no motivation and are a disruptive force in general,only waiting for discharge.Besides that they are expensive to train.

 

I voted no to general conscription,but this idea would provide motivation,and I would suggest a minimum term of five years to get back the cost of training.

 

No, there is no need. Our U.S. Military is a volunteer system and obama can barely equip them as it is.

 

There is a problem right now in that the length of service of many that only meant to sign up for short terms of duty (as in the reserves and especially the Guard) keep being called up to such an excess that they no longer can have a normal life. No one should be trapped like this forever. In the case of officers sent through ROTC this is probably justified, but young people should not be forced to abandon family life because of excessive demands from the military.

 

`
Such an idea has merit in small counties but would be fiscally and logistically impractical here.

 

Why. Universal military service would help to eliminate constant warfare. It is easy to send someone else's kids off to die. With less than 1% of the population serving in the military, what we have now amounts to mercinaries.

 

`
For starters, have you any estimates at cost of implementing this idea? I don't think a trillion dollars would be an exaggerated guess.

 

Where did you pull that estimate from? (sorry about the grammar). About 4,000,000 folks turn 18 every year in the U.S. If we go with the Swiss model and do 6 months of training, that would increase the number in the military at any one time by 2,000,000. Figure we would be fighting constant foreign wars, we could develop a defensive force instead of what we have now. The current military is designed for foreign aggression and little else. If the U.S. was actually attacked we would have to surrender. When we were attacked on 911 we have four fighters on alert, FOUR!, two on the east coast and two on the west coast.

 

`
All I'm saying is that this idea costs money...lots of money. The cost of housing, clothing, feeding and medically caring for millions....just to go through 6 months of training...isn't chump change.

 

Have you ever compared the cost of the Swiss military in percentage of GDP to our own? You figure the Swiss are just smarter?

Went and looked it up. The Swiss spend about 0.64% of GDP on defense, we spend 4.35%, almost 7 times as much.

 

And free heath care, and base priviledges, and garranteed home loans.

 

Oddly, the Swiss have none of that.

 

`
Oddly enough, the US Constitution literally forces our government to provide such things....and more. All of that costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

That would put the children of wealthy elites at a big advantage and this ain't kosher in what is supposedly an egalitarian society.

 

Yea or make all the colleges work like the US military academy and so you get a degree for free but have to pay back with service to the military.

 

When people like Trump's and Bush's children are the ones who are going to be forced into the infantry and fight in the front lines of the foreign wars these politicians impose on us, then I will agree to a military draft.

 

Then the terms of sevice must be changed so that there are no multi-call ups .

 

It's impractical today. You have a military of approximately 1.5 million counting all services. To replace those who get out at the end of their enlistment and those that retire, the military needs approximately 180,000 new recruits each year. It is estimated 3 million students graduate from High School each year. This total does not count drop outs or all of those who turn 18 years of age. Of course half or a bit more are girls which were never subject to the draft even when it was in effect. Considering those who were drafted back when the U.S. were drafting people served for 2 years.

The military just isn't big enough to accomplish what you propose. Just one graduating class is twice the size of our military today. Wouldn't work.

 

No, it doesn't.