National Service

[WarRatsG]

National service, also known as conscription, is where a government makes joining the army compulsory, usually for just a year or two. National service is accepted in a lot of European countries such as Switzerland and Denmark, along with Asian countries like South Korea and Turkey. The recruits are not sent abroad to actually fight in any wars - they simply train like military personnel for short time between leaving high school and beginning university or college.

 

I have listed some good and bad points to this kind of service.

 

A year or two in the army could be very beneficial on a personal level. It could be a potent character building experience for many, especially those who have just floated through school without gaining much by way of qualifications or discipline - the army could help with both. Presenting youths with a challenge would likely help them to become a little wiser and more independent, to acquire life skills and common sense that they carry with them for the rest of their lives. It would also give those who flourish on benefits the chance to give something back to society. Most recruits will never even have to face combat. The level of camaraderie and brotherhood in the Army is also hard to.find anywhere else - in Turkey, it's common practice to have your picture taken while standing in front of a Turkish flag and holding an M60 in either arm at the end of your term.

 

It also benefits the country as a whole. Recruits would make a decent workforce to provide cheap labour during their "exercises". Even in the Roman Empire, the local militia did a lot of the work in making and maintaining basic roads. The population would have a lot more respect for the army too, if their family have become a part of it. There is also the opportunity to learn many new skills - there are several departments in the army, and not all of them revolve around digging trenches and dodging bullets. A person could ask to be posted as a medic, giving them a headstart into a medicine career; they could have a brief apprentiship as an engineer or mechanic; at the very least, you could learn to drive.

 

There is also the military gains. A fresh supply of recruits every year would ensure they are never in short supply, as the entire population would remember at least some of their basic training if they were called upon. Due to the nature of conscription, Switzerland has a completely delocalised army that mobilize quickly and easily, going to any part of the country when needed. It is also nearly impossible to inflict a significant preemptive strike against them when they are so spread out. South Korea believe that conscription protected them from invasion by North Korea, since their armed forces were large enough to sufficiently deter them.

 

 

There are also many reasons not to use national service. A friend of mine is a swiss national, and has to return to Switzerland soon to fulfill his national service. A young South Korean football player, who is part of the national squad, is being forcibly withdrawn from his promising career to "make his country proud" in a much less visible way. While a term can teach new skills, this may be needless - or simply obstructive - if the individual already has sufficient education, knows where they are going in life and will give back to the country in their own time.

 

As far as discipline goes, some people are beyond help. If they go into service as a lazy, work-dodging, benefit sucking delinquent, there is every chance that they will emerge as a lazy, work-dodging, benefit sucking delinquent trained in the usage of weapons. Plus, dealing with thousands of cotton wool kids who cry themselves to sleep on their first night away from home and refuse to do a pushup on the ground because it's dirty would be a lot of (possibly wasted) effort for the training personnel. Worse, who knows how many would try to escape their term and how far would they go to accomplish this?

 

Cheap labour may appear to be good, but it would also deplete the limited amount of work available to the professional workers - workers who would lose their jobs and claim benefits and detract from whatever the government saved. Furthermore, since they have no jobs they wouldnt be paying taxes.

 

A recruit who does not want to be in the army probably does not want to fight. Desertion and suicide were very common in the first world war, where conscripts unwillingly made up a large portion of the troops on most battlefields. Morality is often poor in newer or less trained soldiers.

 

 

These are my thoughts on national service. Please, if you have anything you want to add then go ahead, if you have any opinions you want to share then please do ;)

 

Personally, I think national service, at it's heart, cannot be justified ethically or philosophically. While it does have the potential to help "wake up" young adults as they leave school, helping them to become responsible citizens, it comes down to a government having the right to risk my life without my consent. Besides, it's financially and practically near-impossible.

 

I am going to be writing about this issue soon, so I will be playing the devil's advocate to help develop arguments for both sides. There is a very good chance I will counter any and all points you make, even if one agrees and the next opposes, but know that your input is greatly appreciated :)

Edited October 7, 2012 by WarRatsG

[LadyMilla]

Personally, I think national service should be brought back in the UK.

 

I don't care much about what happens in the UK with regard to conscription and military matters, but conscription is something I'm happy we have got rid of after the change of the political system. If 'character building' means subjecting newly conscripted men to rude jokes and humiliation by older soldiers then I say, good riddance. Because, in our country, that was the practice.

 

Defending your country should always be a personal choice, and not an obligation imposed on you by the law. A person who was drafted against his will, and performs his or her duties without commitment will never be as efficient as a professional or a volunteer even if their skills are comparable.

[Ghogiel]

You can just volunteer if you want.

 

There just wouldn't be any forcing me. When faced with destruction I would fight, but I wouldn't be invading some country shooting up the place for purposes that have zero need and no ethical merit. Fight for Cameron, the corps, financial institutions or over another countries resources, when pigs fly.

[McclaudEagle]

If national service was to ever be brought back to the UK, it would give me another reason to leave (on top of the other hundred). I personally do not see it as right that a government should be allowed to force someone to join a career they may not have any interest in. I can only imagine that if such a thing did happen, there would either be a lot of desertions, or a hell of a lot of "fraggings" and "blue on blues". Fragging is a term used to describe soldiers method of killing their officers. Back in the Vietnam War, it was extremely common. The squad/fire team would collaborate, and the killer would be at the back and would throw a grenade in the direction of the officer, or just simply shoot him in the back.

 

Blue-on-blue refers to friendly fire, and I could guess there would be a lot more of it. To be honest, it's pointless and impractical now anyway. It's highly like there will never be another war which requires conscription anymore, at least not in Western countries. Besides, one of the U.S. Army's major concerns is that it's getting harder to find recruits because the country is getting fatter and fatter...and the UK isn't far behind.

 

Another thing you're forgetting is that the UK is suffering from a very bad economy, and the MoD has had to make significant cut-backs in all branches, the Army, Air Force and Navy. National service would no doubt cripple the defense budget, making it both practically and financially pointless and impossible.

 

Oh, and last year, or the year before, the British Army had reached maximum capacity and for a short while weren't recruiting. This means there would be no use or need of more troops.

[Nintii]

In our country we had conscription many years ago ... directly after matriculatiom or grade 12 as you might call it, they were drafted straight into the military.

Many of the men in our family went ... though it was tough, none of them would exchange the camaraderie they experienced there for anything in the world.

When you're fighting for something you believe in, then it's always worth it ... however, there will always be those who believe in

nothing except their own welfare.

The rich and connected somehow managed to escape their DUTY and do what they normally do in such cases, disappear into the cracks only to reappear after the fighting is done, their derrier's all nice and warm and safe.

Yes, it is character building ... my mother always used to tell me how much my father had changed and that when came out of the army what a better man he was.

And such was the case with most of the men in our family.

 

Lastly, it is unfortunate Ladymilla but you will always find those who give the military a bad name.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Nintii

[Vagrant0]

While I'm in favor of compulsory service to the country for voting rights and other civil benefits, the option of military service alone is simply not practical.

 

The reality is that not all personalities, physical status, or mental condition is particularly suited to combat or even 6 months of bootcamp. Most of the people who wash out of bootcamp usually do so because of the extreme physical and mental stress they are put under and they are simply unable to cope with it without taking a destructive route. Voluntary military service helps exclude this group from service instead of forcing them to try and get through it only to fall apart on the field. The figures related to the occurrence of PTSD (shell shock) from WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all end up being much more frequent than cases from modern wars and voluntary service.

 

The other part is that a military where a majority of those serving at any time probably don't want to be there ends up significantly reducing the effectiveness of that military to the point where soldiers fail more operations, retreat from the area of engagement. or take efforts to undermine their own capability so that they aren't selected for missions.

 

 

The better option would be to allow a multitude of options for any sort of compulsory service including higher education, civil service, or apprenticeship. Not only does this grant more options to an individual after leaving highschool, it presents options other than those that are based around a conflict driven environment while still instilling those some of those values that are beneficial to any society. Afterall, not all talents and proficiencies are applicable to duty as ground troops, and you would be risking the developmental well being of your country by using artists, scholars, craftsmen, inventors, scientists, actors, or problem solvers as cannon fodder. We are no longer in a pre-information society where the majority of jobs need little more than a warm body that can lift 80lbs. Restricting people to those sorts of roles only means restricting cultural and technological advancement. The reality is that the wealthy would end up getting some loophole so that they wouldn't need to serve anyway, so you might as well just leave that hole open so that others can benefit.

[WarRatsG]

Hehe, I've actually been playing the devil's advocate here - I actually am against conscription, at least in the military sense. The government exists because we, the tax-payers, sustain it with the money that we work to earn, so the government does not own our lives as well. We don't live because of the government - it exists because of us. Plus, the only person who can own your life is you. The government cannot and should never be able to expend your life to further their interests abroad. Besides, they would never be able to afford paying all of the recruits and sacrificing the taxes gained from those who would otherwise be working.

Everyone argues a little harder than they agree though, so I took the more controversial side, hoping to be "edified". I'm wanting to write about it and thought it would be a good idea to supplement my research with general opinions.

 

This is good though, so I'm going to keep debating anyway to keep the flow of information going :)

 

I should point out though that I am not talking about the sudden conscription where half the country is drafted into the army to fight a war thousands of miles away. I am talking about the kind where you undergo a year or two in the army sometime between leaving high school and starting college or university. You then leave the army and have no further obligations whatsoever.

 

 

 

I don't care much about what happens in the UK with regard to conscription and military matters

Just mentioned it specifically because that's where I live. ;)

 

conscription is something I'm happy we have got rid of after the change of the political system. If 'character building' means subjecting newly conscripted men to rude jokes and humiliation by older soldiers then I say, good riddance. Because, in our country, that was the practice.

 

That fault lies with people, not the army itself. Bullies, for lack of a better word, are everywhere. Should we abolish schools too?

 

 

Defending your country should always be a personal choice, and not an obligation imposed on you by the law. A person who was drafted against his will, and performs his or her duties without commitment will never be as efficient as a professional or a volunteer even if their skills are comparable.

 

You are completely correct in that it should always be a personal choice, and that those who are forced would never be as good as those who volunteer. That said, when an enemy comes to your doorstep it tends to bring out the patriot in a lot of people. National Service would probably not be required - people would volunteer if it really came down to preventing an invasion (unless our government was more tyrannical than the "enemy"), so it would be useful to have some basic training instilled within them prior to them signing up. As I have said before though, actual combat is secondary - personal growth and skill development would likely be the primary aims with today's culture. War in Europe is unlikely these days anyway.

 

 

 

You can just volunteer if you want.

 

Was TA for a while, best time of my life. Considering joining the army as a surgeon because of it.

 

 

There just wouldn't be any forcing me. When faced with destruction I would fight, but I wouldn't be invading some country shooting up the place for purposes that have zero need and no ethical merit. Fight for Cameron, the corps, financial institutions or over another countries resources, when pigs fly.

 

Dulce est decorum est pro patria mori.

I am the last person to fight for the "old lie". I am entirely against wars in general - a person should not have to lay their life on the line because two politicians are having an arguement - but there are times when it is necessary. Think how many genocides have had to be ended by other countries sending in the armed forces: WWII in the 40s, Bosnian war in the 90s, Somalian civil war 2009... the list goes on. Evil prospers when good men do nothing, so to speak. An empty war is not the army's fault - that lies with the government. Besides, unless the enemy came to your country, it is highly unlikely that anyone undergoing national service would be sent abroad to fight a war. That would be left to the regulars.

 

 

 

I personally do not see it as right that a government should be allowed to force someone to join a career they may not have any interest in. I can only imagine that if such a thing did happen, there would either be a lot of desertions, or a hell of a lot of "fraggings" and "blue on blues".

 

National service tends to be very short - usually up to 2 years at most. In Turkey, it can be as short as 6 months. I would not call this a "career", however the skills learned could be applied to many careers - communications and IT for example. The army also provide some of the best references available, if you are honourably discharged.

As for fraggings, it is highly unlikely most National Service recruits would likely even see combat anyway, let alone have any reason to shoot their officers or each other.

 

 

Another thing you're forgetting is that the UK is suffering from a very bad economy, and the MoD has had to make significant cut-backs in all branches, the Army, Air Force and Navy. National service would no doubt cripple the defense budget, making it both practically and financially pointless and impossible.

 

Oh, and last year, or the year before, the British Army had reached maximum capacity and for a short while weren't recruiting. This means there would be no use or need of more troops.

 

They are recruiting now, but it's still useful for me to know. I took a look around and it looks like the current armed forces is around 180 000 regulars with another 255 000 reserves (as of early 2012, My link). Even if I wanted to, I can't argue with you here because the capacity is clearly far too small for the entire country.

 

 

 

While I'm in favor of compulsory service to the country for voting rights and other civil benefits, the option of military service alone is simply not practical.

 

The reality is that not all personalities, physical status, or mental condition is particularly suited to combat or even 6 months of bootcamp. Most of the people who wash out of bootcamp usually do so because of the extreme physical and mental stress they are put under and they are simply unable to cope with it without taking a destructive route. Voluntary military service helps exclude this group from service instead of forcing them to try and get through it only to fall apart on the field. The figures related to the occurrence of PTSD (shell shock) from WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all end up being much more frequent than cases from modern wars and voluntary service.

 

Not all parts of the military involve digging trenches and dodging bullets. There are many parts behind the lines that those less suited to fighting could try - being a medic for a year could be an excellent head start into a career in medicine, for example. People could sign up for specific departments and develop IT skills or engineering capabilities if they have prior qualifications and sign up far enough in advance.

 

The other part is that a military where a majority of those serving at any time probably don't want to be there ends up significantly reducing the effectiveness of that military to the point where soldiers fail more operations, retreat from the area of engagement. or take efforts to undermine their own capability so that they aren't selected for missions.

 

True. I can't really argue with this, I can just refer to the fact that would I would disagree with sending a bunch of 18 and 19 year old recruits to supplement a war anyway. If National Service was to be enforced, then it should be for defence only, where they would be far away from combat.

 

The better option would be to allow a multitude of options for any sort of compulsory service including higher education, civil service, or apprenticeship. Not only does this grant more options to an individual after leaving highschool, it presents options other than those that are based around a conflict driven environment while still instilling those some of those values that are beneficial to any society. Afterall, not all talents and proficiencies are applicable to duty as ground troops, and you would be risking the developmental well being of your country by using artists, scholars, craftsmen, inventors, scientists, actors, or problem solvers as cannon fodder. We are no longer in a pre-information society where the majority of jobs need little more than a warm body that can lift 80lbs. Restricting people to those sorts of roles only means restricting cultural and technological advancement. The reality is that the wealthy would end up getting some loophole so that they wouldn't need to serve anyway, so you might as well just leave that hole open so that others can benefit.

 

Comparing the talents of two random people is like comparing a fish and a monkey on their ability to climb trees. I realise this, but as I have said before National Service would not have to be composed of running around the local countryside and learning how to not be shot. You are also right about the loopholes - but those people would be without a reference, which as I have mentioned can be among one of the best available to a youth.

 

 

EDIT:: There is something called Alternative Civilian Service in existence in many countries, such as Switzerland and Norway, where conscientious objectors or those who are otherwise unable to perform National Service contribute to society in other ways in lieu of conscription.

Edited October 4, 2012 by WarRatsG

[WarRatsG]

In our country we had conscription many years ago ... directly after matriculatiom or grade 12 as you might call it, they were drafted straight into the military.

Many of the men in our family went ... though it was tough, none of them would exchange the camaraderie they experienced there for anything in the world.

When you're fighting for something you believe in, then it's always worth it ... however, there will always be those who believe in

nothing except their own welfare.

The rich and connected somehow managed to escape their DUTY and do what they normally do in such cases, disappear into the cracks only to reappear after the fighting is done, their derrier's all nice and warm and safe.

Yes, it is character building ... my mother always used to tell me how much my father had changed and that when came out of the army what a better man he was.

And such was the case with most of the men in our family.

 

Lastly, it is unfortunate Ladymilla but you will always find those who give the military a bad name.

 

My time in the Territorial Army (a homeland army) was among the best time of my life. It changed and now defines me, so I understand what you mean. It has to be tough, otherwise you learn nothing and don't grow.

 

I'm glad that experience in the military has brought so many benefits to you and your family. If National Service could help everyone like it has with your family, then it would definitely be worth the cost and effort of adding it to our society.

 

Also, sorry I didn't answer this with my first post - I didn't see it because you posted while I was writing up my replies :rolleyes:

[Ghogiel]

but there are times when it is necessary.

Well yeah. Even Gandhi conceded that violence might would be the pertinent course of action when faced with annihilation. So even the biggest pacifists aren't pussies. Come at me bro.

[WarRatsG]

but there are times when it is necessary.

Well yeah. Even Gandhi conceded that violence might would be the pertinent course of action when faced with annihilation. So even the biggest pacifists aren't pussies. Come at me bro.

 

I don't need to, you've already agreed with me 8)

 

Pacifist = Someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes.

Pussy = Cowardly