What's your opinion on mandatory military service?

Suppose you live in a disputed region claimed by three different warlords. Would you have to serve triple the time, or would you be forced to pick a side?

I think anyone who owns a car and lives in the suburbs or in a rural country area should have mandatory military service.

It should only happen if we need it

Just imagine if instead of millitary service, it was compulsary public service that actually benefitted society. Nursing, construction/infrastructure, farming, teaching/childcare, etc.

Its astrounding how much money is pumped into the military industrial complex when it could be used to fund to many other programs for public good.

But that would be sOciALiSm.

how if guns would be prevalent

hahahaha 'would' hahahhahhah. hilarious.

a huge contigent of domestic terrorism in the united states is ex-military white guys. also, a huge percentage of the homeless population are veterans.. it clearly leaves a psychological stain we then refuse to mop up. but yeah, lets push everyone through agencies with the worst sexual assault tallies in the country. awesome.

Nobody should be forced to be a war machine. If you want, you can encourage it, give it appealing perks, but ultimately the decision should be down to the individual if they want to spend a chunk of their life on that.

In somw places it's more necessary than others. I don't think US would benefit from it, but here in Finland I'd rather keep it. I'd try to make civilian service more common choice than currently, though.

they were never deployed

You absolutely should not ever get deployed during mandatory service. That shit is not okay.

In Switzerland we do mandatory military service or public service if you don’t do the military.

Both are ok, I only know the military but it’s a good experience. At first you don’t really want to do it but then you have a lot of fun, drink tons of cheap beers and learn to shoot (skill that you have to maintain for several years with mandatory shooting sessions).

Overall it’s more of a school of life rather than military school. I knew people in the medics and they did jack shit. I was in DCA and did jack shit. Most people I talk to did dumb stuff and most of us have good and funny memories from that time.

Is this a useful military force? Probably not, but we are Switzerland so who cares?

Mandatory training - Yes Mandatory service - No

In the event of a real defensive war, where your nation is invaded with the intent of conquest or subjugation, you will not have a lack of volunteers. You will have a lack of trained people.

It takes a couple of months to train a new recruit. Having everyone ready to go will help tremendously during the initial stages of war.

On the other hand, a permanent mandatory service is 1. A waste of money, 2. Open for exploitation by corrupt governments

I was one of the last people in Sweden to muster for conscription, I failed the first (hearing) test and was discharged.

This was just before conscription was ended, and about a decade later we have conscription again in Sweden.

There are two main advantages to universal conscription in my oppinion.

1. It gives the population unity, it is a unifying experience that you have in common with everyone, this creates a stronger society.
2. It gives the population a general understanding of guns and military action, this is useful in war as people are already familiar with the basic concepts of firearms handling and military tactics, ok, they won't be as good as professional soldiers, but they understand the concepts and that is a good foundation to build uppon.

I'm all for mandatory military *training*. Deployment is a separate issue.

It's ridiculous and should never be implemented.

It depends on how it's done.

First, there has to be a compensation. Generally speaking free college gets tied to it a lot. In the US a mandatory service isn't getting off the ground without it.

Second, there needs to be multiple avenues of service. It cannot just be military. To be honest, the military can't handle the number of conscripts. There's about half a million every year. So spreading that out into other service avenues such as a construction corps, EMTs, hospital helpers, legislative staff, libraries, etc, is required. (The specifics are obviously up for debate)

I do believe a mandatory service brings people together and strengthens a country. But it's just not possible for a large country like the US to do military only mandatory service.

Do you consider the right to give up a basic human right? I do. Military service should never be mandatory. Also, the whole concept of nation-states is obsolete and harmful and humanity should try to move to stateless/borderless forms of society.

I’d prefer it be more of a mandatory civil service than actual military. If that includes basic weapons training that’s ok with me.

Singapore does this too and you see them everywhere, with their rifle (ammo less).

I don’t think it would have any impact on gun violence though.

There are talks about it in Germamy, but afaik with an option to refuse the service at the arms and help in the social sector instead.

If I'd be forced into a military environment I'd probably kill myself the first time I see a weapon.

Conscription is slavery if the people are not under imminent threat.

Conscription will always be used as weapon of the rich against the poor.

Conscription will never affect the children of the rich as much as it affects the poor.

Conscription *does* demystify military service and can teach useful skills.

Balancing these and other factors is always the trick.

I'd prefer a voluntary military service in a society that strongly encourages people to sign up for short service periods and doesn't lock them in for years as an anti-abuse measure, as a training program for a more popular citizen militia defense scheme.

My response to the title: No\

If I am being forced to, I will try to steer it towards any non-combant service like IT or (if necessary) social service.

I am absolutely against it. You cannot force a person to give 100% of their effort. So if a person doesn’t wanna be there. They’re not going to put forward 100%. Wanna guess who picks up the rest.? Yeah that’s right their teammates. Now their teammates are pissed off because they’re doing extra work. That destroys morale . It doesn’t matter what type of job they have whether it’s infantry or office based or whatever the end result is the same.

It’s one of the reasons why when you enlist when you’re going through training, it really is not that hard to get out of training. During the Vietnam era you pretty much had to throw yourself down a flight of stairs and break your leg or something. Today, yeah it’s significantly easier to leave.

Because the mentality is, if you don’t wanna be there then just go home.

Special operations takes it to the next level they have (for example with the seals) a bell that you ring. Literally just walk up ring the bell and you’re done.

I have met a few vets, but not very many people who served who think military should be mandatory. The vast majority of people have served say : no service should not be mandatory. At least the ones that I’ve met.

I have met a fair number civilians who thinks military service should be mandatory though.

Compare Switzerland. Everyone after secondary school gets a year learning how to work as a team and practice interdependence.

Seems like it's working really well for them, as they have more guns per capita and almost zero mass shootings. Maybe that's the thing they're doing right?

Personally I don't have an issue with it as it's the only chance I and other poor kids had for entering college.

I'm fine with mandatory military service for a country that treats its military in a sane way and would never deploy conscripts outside of a last resort due to existential threat to the homeland. For most countries mandatory military service is just spending a few years learning to be a guardsman and learning a trade and serving your country and community in some substantive way. It should never involve getting anywhere near combat for anyone that didn't volunteer.

In the USA? Hell to the no, even before Trump.

I read a novel written by a Vietnam era draftee.

There was a scene where two draftees were talking about ending the draft. One was against it because it would mean that all the people in the Army would be 'lifers' and lifers were the ones who were quickest to massacre civilians.

Hunter Thompson wrote about it once. His opinion was that when he served, a lot of upper class families sent their sons to the Army. That meant that they were meeting and working with all types of people.

My personal take is that it's a good thing, if there's a non-military equivalent, something like FDR's CCC

I am pro mandatory military service, but not as it is done.\

Everyone must serve. No getting out of it, but one may delay service by a short period while deathly ill or pregnant.\

The military must accommodate all and their families.\

Service reoccures every 10 years for 1 year.\

Senator, President, judge? Too bad.\

Old? You will be accommodated and your experience valued.\

About to die but out of delay? Please accept the best medical care possible. Also, your friends and family can visit.\

Everyone benefits from strong defense, so everyone must contrubute.

Change "military" to "national" and I do, with appropriate exemptions for disabilities. There's usually *something* a person can do for public service, even if it's keeping a dying patient company.

I'm not for it but if mandatory service were a thing the population would be more hesitant to go to war knowing their flesh and blood might be included

I would, of course, discourage it. The idea of nation states as-is is, due to how they conflict with principles of personhood, already questionable, something I say without being a proper anarchist. To be forced to fight and often die for it, especially if the war or military isn't democratically ordained or if there was no guarantee you wouldn't return to normal society later only to still find your voice in it limited and your opportunities in life challenged, makes it magnitudes less arguable. You might call this an extremely unpopular opinion here, but I'd go so far as to say there are few things more noble than a deserter.

Deleted by author

As an Australian I have no interest in "defending" a country that's rampant with shit stain politcans, their oligarchs, along with their supporters and retinue.

Cumpolsory military service my sweet asshole.

I am for it only because it helps avoid politicization of the armed forces. When the military self-selects recruits, you risk the organization biasing towards people with a particular worldview. It intrinsicially also leads to a military comprised of people who love the idea of being a "military person".

It's much more reassuring knowing your armed forces, the people with the big guns, are your neighbors, rather than strangers with a particular ideology or biased loyalties.

I’m a bit ambivalent: I would have hated it, and there’s no immediate benefit. I’m also well past the point of being affected, so yes, you should have compulsory service.

Compulsory service can’t create an effective military force, but what it can do is widespread experience with discipline, working together, basic weapons familiarity. There are many emergencies where having this widespread experience might be useful, over a herd of random citizens in an unruly mob. Heck, make it part of national guard or have fema run it.

For the military, you might get a head start on getting people ready, should you ever have to call them up. In recent decades we always assumed war is fast and you can only use what you start with, but Ukraine demonstrate there can still be protracted wars.

But I’m picturing more of an organized force to help in a large flood or fire for example. Or it helps to have some sort of goal, so build it as a modern WPA.

Completely fucked up.

Its slavery no matter how you slice it.

Mandatory paid service with military as an OPTION, maybe. I'd like kids to get work right out of high school, have a year before college or whatever to make some money and do something different.\

Literally always the military? No way. And certainly nothing that doesn't come with a paycheck. It just sucks now that the only way to get scholarships for college is right out of high school, something needs to interrupt that.\

Amazingly, I'm not a big fan of slavery.

So, usually when you have mandatory military service, the point is to make everyone go through training, so that if they have to call people up, they immediately have a large pool of people who have at least some idea of what they're doing (though they're probably a bit rusty).

The US has never done that. A number of countries have. Why?

A big factor here is geography.

The primary scenario you're going to need a lot of infantry on very short notice is if you're being invaded. If a country might find itself in a situation where soldiers are massing at their border and about to cross it, they cannot screw around for months calling people up and training them.

This mostly isn't a problem for the US, because of its geography and military position. The US is sitting on a landmass consisting of two continents with no other major powers. That makes it hard for a neighbor to invade -- you have to move an invasion force across the ocean. To do that, you have to gain control of the oceans so that you can move transports across them, which is extremely difficult against the US: it's the largest air and naval power in the world, and on top of that, it's allied with a large percentage of the remaining air and naval powers.

Here's a decade-old article that has someone from Jane's talking about what would be involved in an invasion of the mainland US in a worst-case scenario, where literally the rest of the world is conducting an invasion:

https://www.vice.com/el/article/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states/

We Asked a Military Expert if All the World’s Armies Could Shut Down the US

But can we get them? Is that even an option, or are they really harder than China, Russia, Iran, the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, Belarus, and every other country put together? In order to find out just how possible a Rest of the World versus America revenge fantasy invasion would be, I got in touch with Dylan Lehrke, Americas Armed Forces Analyst at IHS Jane’s.

ICE: First thing’s first. How could the rest of the world disable the US nuclear capacity?

Dylan Lehrke: It is virtually impossible to eliminate the US nuclear arsenal since it is based on a triad of land, air, and sea delivery systems designed to provide a counterstrike capability. The submarine-launched ballistic missiles in particular are widely accepted as the most survivable element of the US nuclear deterrent as a portion of it is always at sea. The land-based missiles too are difficult to eliminate, as they are in hardened silos in the middle of the country. Any adversary facing the United States would need to either be willing to absorb a nuclear attack or develop a ballistic-missile defense system currently beyond the scope of anything technologically feasible.

Well, I’ve got a pretty good blueprint of one in my bedroom, so let’s assume it’s totally possible. If not, perhaps we need to go to the source: Obama. Could the nuclear football be grabbed from the president?

I can’t really answer this one since we have very little information on the technical aspects.

OK. Let’s just assume the technical aspects are that he carries it around in his pocket and I’ve stolen it. So, once the nuclear capabilities are down, what could an invasion of the US look like?

The US is the sole country in the world that has the capability to project force across the globe on a large scale. The combined military air- and sealift capability of the rest of the world would be insufficient to even get a foothold on the continental United States. The amphibious assault capability of the world’s militaries, excluding the United States, is simply too small.

That means the adversary would have to seize and use civilian aircraft and ships not designed for nonpermissive environments. These ships would require secure bases in Canada and Mexico, since they lack the capability to deliver forces onto unimproved shores. Thus, any attempted invasion of the US would first look like a rather motley caravan of vulnerable civilian ships and aircraft.

If these forces managed to avoid US attacks and build up, they could then launch an attack over land.

I’m sure we could manage it. Where would an invasion begin? Which parts of the American coast are most vulnerable to attack?

As I already noted, the amphibious-assault capability of the combined militaries of the world are simply too insignificant to get a beachhead on a coast. If they managed to go undetected, itself an impossible feat in light of modern surveillance capability, they still could not build up a force of any size before being pushed back into the sea.

Thus, an invasion would have to come via a land border, with the terrain of the southern border (that with Mexico) being most conducive to military operations. However, the fact that the largest US Army armor base happens to be in Texas naturally would hinder such an attack. Going through the Canadian border—out West, to avoid the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Seaway—would be easier, although the invasion would then be limited to light infantry and would have trouble concentrating forces. In addition, it would fail to take over population centers or other important strategic points, since it is mostly national parks out there.

Well, once we have the national parks, we have the bears and wolves on our side, which will make us unbeatable. I guess the big question here is: Are the world’s combined forces—including those mad North Koreans, because every little helps—enough to defeat those of the US?

Yes, but only if the US is on the offensive or only if defeat does not equate to conquer or destroy, which it generally does not. The world could, for example, certainly contain the US as the US did the Soviet Union. But the question you are really asking, if I am correct, is: Are the world’s combined forces enough to conquer the United States? Here the answer is no, for it is much harder to project force. It requires logistical resources that the rest of the world simply does not have.

OK. That’s disappointing.

The primary problem here is geography. Just as the vast Russian steppe swallows armies, so would the oceans that surround the US. No matter the manpower or armament, it must be delivered across the Pacific and Atlantic in order to be brought to bear. This is where US naval and air power would destroy any adversary, far before they sullied the US shore.

And this is where you meet the second primary problem, which is technology. There are not enough aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships in the combined navies of the world to force an entry past the US Navy. There are not enough attack fighters to gain air superiority against the US Air Force. This is how amazingly out of balance the military might of the world is today.

Could we find a work-around?

The solution for the invading world armies would be to negate the importance of geography and technology. This means not relying on armies and navies and air forces but instead targeting the US in the space and cyber domains. By defeating US satellites and attacking US networks, one bypasses geography and eliminates technology, both that of the military and within the industrial base that is at the core of that military might.

Cool, so we’ll just get the hackers onboard.

However, one still does not conquer the soil. So we arrive at the same conclusion: as the world military balance stands today, even in the unlikely case that the entire world aligns against them, the United States could not be conquered. It can only be defeated. I suspect you had hoped for a more *Red Dawn*-type possibility but I can’t offer one without stretching reality beyond the point of reason. We would have to bring in pure science fiction to make it feasible.

Oh well, I guess that’s pretty emphatic. Thanks for humoring me, Dylan.

Up until, say, about World War II, air forces weren't a major factor, and the naval balance of power meant that the US was *not* the largest naval power in the world. Around World War I, it was a second-tier naval power, well behind Germany and the British Empire. It was possible for larger naval powers to blockade and potentially transport invasion forces. However, an attacker is generally at a disadvantage; projecting power requires a substantial amount of superiority, since you have long, vulnerable supply lines over the ocean and any kind of amphibious attack, even across a river, means that you risk transporting part of your forces in -- because you don't have transport capability to move all of them at once -- and then having them clobbered while the next batch is coming over. In World War II, Germany unquestionably had much stronger land forces than the UK did, especially after the Battle of France. Mainland Europe was only separated from the UK by about twenty miles of ocean. But that little strip of ocean alone was enough to make an invasion too disadvantageous; Germany considered an invasion, which it had planned as Operation Sea Lion, unworkable unless it could gain both air superiority (which it did failed to do so in the Battle of Britain) and naval superiority (which it was not near either) to keep the Royal Navy and British air forces from turning the invasion into a disaster. And the distance over sea to the US from any major power is a lot larger.

[continued in child]

Mandatory military service is the *one* case where accelerationism *might* possibly make sense. The fact that the military is made up of volunteers makes it harder to radicalize, and people are more willing to support war because, "The soldiers chose to be there." Go ahead, rip people away from the comfort of our homes, give us guns and training, and tell us we have to go risk our lives murdering brown people on the other side of the world in pointless conflicts in service of corporate interests - it's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

I oppose the draft because I wouldn't want to subject myself or others to that. But at the same time, I dare them to try it.

It's against human rights, and severely fucked-up

Hmmm. I could support mandatory *service*, but not necessarily *military* service. An army of conscripts isn't a very good army; just look at Russia. OTOH, I think that, in general, a population that has some basic level of training so that they can be called up and quickly activated if the professional military needs more people isn't a terrible idea. On the *other* other hand, I think that people being conscripted to do public works and service is a pretty solid idea.

That said, I'd be much, much more supportive of a system where no one had citizenship--and I mean *no one*--without doing four years of service for their country first, in whatever capacity they were needed and capable of serving, whether that's some form of military service, or working in soup kitchens. E.g., unless you are willing to work for the country, you should not be able to vote -or- be elected, nor should you have absolute, unfettered free speech. IMO people need to be invested in some way in their country. Look at immigrants that have been naturalized; they're often far more serious about their citizenship and their responsibilities as citizens than people that were born and raised here. IMO we should aspire to have all citizens be as committed as those that have been naturalized.

EDIT - to be clear, I support a population being actively engaged in the politics of their locality, state, and country. Too many people are *dis*engaged from news and politics, and that's a terrible thing.

As far as firearms training, my issue is that it's often used as a way to deny rights. E.g., make training mandatory to get a permit, but make training expensive, inconvenient to get to, at times that conflict with work schedules, etc., in order to discourage people from exercising their right. If training was offered on-demand, was free, and you didn't need to pass a test in order to be able to use your civil right, then sure. Like, the hunters' safety classes? You have to take the class, but you don't have to pass a test in order to be permitted to get a hunting license. (Or, you don't in my state. I've taken the class; most of it is pretty basic if you are already familiar with guns.) Any system that uses testing to determine if you can exercise a civil right will inevitably end up functioning like literacy tests did for voting rights.

Hunter safety is a gun safety class that under age kids can take to help build good habits when handling firearms. Maybe people could use those instead.

Fuck your military slave bullshit. Fuck it forever.

It is abuse and violation of person's freedom and dignity. It (and people supporting it) should be fought by any means necessary.

I'm against forcing 18 year olds to use guns. Give them some alternative like civil/public service and do something good for society.

Fuck that noise.

Professional army.

Support and train a reserve army of those willing. Citizens that could support the country and other citizens in the case of an invasion. Some countries do that. I like to think of those.

Only if otherwise necessary general service. E.g. active invasion you can't otherwise oppose, or you can't establish a minimum reserve.

It ignores that people have consciences and forces such ones into violent behavior. That violates human freedom and dignity.

Some countries have implemented some sort of civilian service. Others just ignore the wishes of their citizens. You decide the moral path here.

If a country gets away with not having a mandatory military service, then it sholdn't have one. Forcing people (usually just men) to spend a substancial amount of time in something, they might have zero motivation to, is unjust.

That being said, I absolutely support the fact that we do have a conscription based army here in Finland. There simply is an existential imperative for an army that is wastly larger than what could be achieved with volunteers. Maybe an initial fighting force could be mustered, but we would have problems refreshing it throug years of heavy attritional combat. Like Ukraine could most likely never maintain a fighting force through volunteer only.

That being said there is an option of civilian service here in Finland. I hold no grudge against anyone choosing that option. I agree that the system is fundamentally injust. I just see no alternative.

I like the idea because it gives people job experience and forces them to interact with a broader cross-section of society, and might help some people who wouldn't otherwise do so consider it as a career, making the military more diverse. It also helps us be more prepared in the event of a major war. And obviously teenage conscripts should never be given combat deployments unless the homeland is literally being invaded, we've seen how traumatic that is even for people who self-select into it. I very much doubt it would do anything to decrease gun violence.

I think military service in general is kind of important since you can actually get attacked (thanks to russia for making my point).

We had mandatory military service for men in germany and it was canceled. I sure hope it stays that way bc it isnt efficient to make kids who have better options waste their time on something they dont actually want to do. We have a professional military for that. AND if we had it, women of course must go too.

But besides that especially in countries known for their warcrimes and batshit crazy politics, like the US, I think its clear that mandatory military training would be a bad idea.

Works best for countries that have a primarily defensive military. You have a large population of resevists to draw on for an invasion, and unless there's something wack going on with your government, there usually isn't a problem of motivating draftees when your country was invaded.

Volunteer militaries tend to need propaganda to get people to join up, even in relative peacetime. That attracts a lot of people who like the idea of shooting people in other countries. Not everyone who joins up is like that, of course. Some are also in bad economic situations and have no other line of work, and some bow to family pressure. In any case, you'll have an easier time convincing them to fight people abroad.

What we have now in America is a system that is volunteer or conscript (commit a crime and you may be given the option to join the military or do prison time). This takes advantage of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

I am generally for the idea of mandatory service. But the actuality as I experienced military service is not something I would wish on other people. The military is kind of broken in many ways.

Suicide rates are higher than the national average.

Rapes/sexual assaults are higher than the national average.

They have a blind spot where mental healthcare is concerned.

Leadership often employs and elevates people who will actively take advantage of their position. This is often detrimental to the members who serve under them.

The military often does a horrible job of allowing injured people the time and conditions to fully heal.

The military also treats everyone as if they lack common sense and the ability to reason. As a result it does not promote the type of people who think outside the box. There's multiple ways that military service infantalizes its members instead of treating them like adults.

There are many reasons I think it could be a good idea and a good experience for the vast majority of people. But not as it is now. The system would need an overhaul.

We could use this, but after basic the year is spent in the country in communities doing public works. There also need to be zero loopholes, zero outs. People from all over the country from all walks of life and all classes live and work together. There was a brief benefit after WWII when men and women came home from service having worked and lived with people from all over the country. Farm boys with no education fought side by side with men who had been to ivy league schools. There was a net benefit to it.

It's a terrible idea. Isn't the military a strong enough institution in the US as it is? What right does the government have to rob years from the lives of their youth by having them go play soldier, especially in times of peace?

I will not befriend anyone who voluntarily served in the armed forces. Kind of like how I won't associate with anyone who works for a weapons company or as a cop. If military service was mandatory in the USA, I would renounce my citizenship and attempt to emigrate to a more sane country. People who choose violence as a career are not worth knowing.

Did mandatory service, and no, it shouldn't be a thing. It's not that you would be fighting in the frontline that it sucks (it is a possibility, but doubt it would happen any time soon), it's that you can't do much during that period that makes it annoying, and you're paid below min wage for it. It also imposes restrictions on you before you complete your service in case you try to avoid it. You also do it during the 20s, and that's just a waste of time.

"Fuck off"

Here, you pay 6 months wage equivalent to go for only 21 days, or go for 6 months on the front lines and 12 months as reserve

I don't really have a solid stance on it. Case by case, country by country. But at least a country that has citizens that have gone through a little bit of service have people who are at least slightly more knowledgeable on how to defend themselves in case they need to rebel or defend themselves with a gun (so long as the people remember their training).

I'd sooner go to prison

Underdeveloped countries have it.

Colombian here. Mandatory military service is morally indistinguishable from slavery. I only was spared from it because I used a loophole that lets you skip it if you're already in college.