Export thread
Insightful Op-Ed piece that explains why we need a draft.
#1
Dave
Dave
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/o...tary-drifting-apart.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&
I have said for quite some time that I feel we need to re-institute the draft. I've never been able to say exactly why other than the fact that people need to know what it's like on the "other side".
These guys put it much better than I ever could. Turns out a mandatory draft are probably better for the country for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in your thoughts.
I have said for quite some time that I feel we need to re-institute the draft. I've never been able to say exactly why other than the fact that people need to know what it's like on the "other side".
These guys put it much better than I ever could. Turns out a mandatory draft are probably better for the country for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in your thoughts.
#2
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
I don't think a mandatory draft is a good idea. I think it has the possibility of breeding resentment towards your country and with terrorist trying to use insiders to do the dirty work I think this would give them a bigger pool of candidates to choose from
#3
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I do not like the idea of a conscripted force. We had more casualties due to accidents than combat during our final years of Vietnam. We had a bunch of strung out, losers in the force because they did not want to be there. They were a danger to everyone around them. Once the Volunteer Army came into play, Accidents dropped dramatically, drug use is way down, and various crimes against civilians and soldiers are down too.
Iraq would not have lasted as long as it did if we had a draft. Then we would have had the massive protests from people that did not want people to fight and die against their will.
If we had more of a commitment of service for kids that are 18 years or older. Military for those that want to go, or Peace Corps or WPA type work for those that do not want to fight. Also throw in GED/craftsman training for those that hit 19-20 with out a diploma.
Iraq would not have lasted as long as it did if we had a draft. Then we would have had the massive protests from people that did not want people to fight and die against their will.
If we had more of a commitment of service for kids that are 18 years or older. Military for those that want to go, or Peace Corps or WPA type work for those that do not want to fight. Also throw in GED/craftsman training for those that hit 19-20 with out a diploma.
#4
Eriol
Eriol
That's pretty much what the bulk of the article was about. How it would be a deterrent to militaristic policies if more people had a "stake" in what the military did. It was much better and more thorough in how it said things though.Iraq would not have lasted as long as it did if we had a draft. Then we would have had the massive protests from people that did not want people to fight and die against their will.
#5
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
My other problem with his article is stripping down the military and building it back up in time of crisis, is just leaving your ass dangling in the wind. We were in terrible shape for all of our wars until after WWII. Hell if Germany had left Russia alone, waited a few years and built up to attack us... we would have caved very rapidly. We had an army smaller than Portugal. We had to ramp up production for 5 years before we were ready for the Germans. And 3 of those years we were at peace.
#6
GasBandit
GasBandit
It can't be overstated how much improved the US Military is from being an all-volunteer affair. I can think of few better ways to dilute the effectiveness and morale of the armed forces than by reinstituting conscription.
However, if you wanted to talk about making military service prerequisite to voting or holding elected office... that has more of a ring to it.
However, if you wanted to talk about making military service prerequisite to voting or holding elected office... that has more of a ring to it.
#7
Shakey
Shakey
I don't know if the government forcing people into service, or into anything, to change their opinion on something is a good idea. Also, forcing more people than we need into harms way in order to make war less appealing seems like a pretty bad idea.
#8
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Instead of having a military caste we would have overlords.It can't be overstated how much improved the US Military is from being an all-volunteer affair. I can think of few better ways to dilute the effectiveness and morale of the armed forces than by reinstituting conscription.
However, if you wanted to talk about making military service prerequisite to voting or holding elected office... that has more of a ring to it.
#9
GasBandit
We already have the problem of a ruling class that is disconnected from the common citizen.
GasBandit
At this rate, it looks like we will anyway. Just "professional political" overlords that have never shown their willingness to put themselves in front of bullets for their country.Instead of having a military caste we would have overlords.
We already have the problem of a ruling class that is disconnected from the common citizen.
#10
strawman
If increasing the number of military doesn't change the troop deployment, then the number in harms way doesn't change.
If they do increase troop deployment, then the battlefield would actually become safer than it is right now, as the military can work more quickly than the enemy, leading to a quicker end, and less overall lives lost.
In theory, of course. If those people don't want to be there, friendly fire and suicide will likely go up.
strawman
Actually it could be the opposite.forcing more people than we need into harms way
If increasing the number of military doesn't change the troop deployment, then the number in harms way doesn't change.
If they do increase troop deployment, then the battlefield would actually become safer than it is right now, as the military can work more quickly than the enemy, leading to a quicker end, and less overall lives lost.
In theory, of course. If those people don't want to be there, friendly fire and suicide will likely go up.
#11
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Nothing is quick in the military "hurry up and wait!"quickly
#12
Shakey
Shakey
And accidents and crimes against civilians. This is one of those ideas that sounds good, but in reality it just doesn't work.In theory, of course. If those people don't want to be there, friendly fire and suicide will likely go up.
#13
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
There could possibly be a multiple track/tier system. At one end, the least possibility of actual combat + the least amount of benefits, and the other end, combat + most benefits.
Though, the military doesn't fix people. Assholes who don't want discipline in their lives won't be helped by the military.
I don't know if this would be a great idea or not. Have to think about it some more.
I do remember a lot of hub-bub about Bush implementing a draft while he was in office though. Sentiments changed?
Though, the military doesn't fix people. Assholes who don't want discipline in their lives won't be helped by the military.
I don't know if this would be a great idea or not. Have to think about it some more.
I do remember a lot of hub-bub about Bush implementing a draft while he was in office though. Sentiments changed?
#14
blotsfan
blotsfan
So, I should have to put my life on hold for a few years risking my life, so I can have a greater appreciation for war?
No thanks.
No thanks.
#15
phil
phil
Reinstate the draft? No thanks.
Term of either military or community service like Bamv3 or North Ranger had to do? I could see that.
Term of either military or community service like Bamv3 or North Ranger had to do? I could see that.
#16
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
fuck the military, I want to keep my soul.
#17
ElJuski
ElJuski
just no.
#18
Cheesy1
Cheesy1
The only time I'd be in favor of the draft is that when Congress declares war, the oldest military-age offspring of each Congressman or Senator MUST be drafted to fight said war. It would definitely make frivolous wars a lot less likely.
#19
Ravenpoe
Nah.
(I feel like I understand Charlie now, this feels pretty good.)
Ravenpoe
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/o...tary-drifting-apart.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&
I have said for quite some time that I feel we need to re-institute the draft. I've never been able to say exactly why other than the fact that people need to know what it's like on the "other side".
These guys put it much better than I ever could. Turns out a mandatory draft are probably better for the country for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in your thoughts.
Nah.
(I feel like I understand Charlie now, this feels pretty good.)
#20
strawman
strawman
Tell that to the swiss.in reality it just doesn't work.
#21
Shakey
Shakey
Their army only participates in peace keeping missions, not combat ones. The problems come in when people who don't want any part of the military are forced into combat. That's when accidents that result in friendly deaths, friendly fire, and violence against civilians surges. Look at Vietnam, it was a mess because the majority of people wanted out any way they could find. When they couldn't find a way out, they took it out on fellow troops and civilians. So unless the plan is to change our military into a non-combat one that only conducts peace keeping missions, I still don't see how that will help.Tell that to the swiss.
#22
strawman
"Peacekeeping" may not be combat to you. But hen you're carrying guns around, clearing buildings and rooms, protecting people with force, and could be attacked at any time by enemies, the distinction hardly matters.
strawman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Switzerland#Switzerland_as_a_federal_stateTheir army only participates in peace keeping missions, not combat ones.
"Peacekeeping" may not be combat to you. But hen you're carrying guns around, clearing buildings and rooms, protecting people with force, and could be attacked at any time by enemies, the distinction hardly matters.
#23
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
call me crazy, but i just dont want to ever kill someone
#24
Shakey
Shakey
They did reconstruction work, not security work. In that whole time a total of 31 officers were sent to Afghanistan. 3 of which were doctors.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Switzerland#Switzerland_as_a_federal_state
"Peacekeeping" may not be combat to you. But hen you're carrying guns around, clearing buildings and rooms, protecting people with force, and could be attacked at any time by enemies, the distinction hardly matters.
#25
bhamv3
bhamv3
I speak as someone who just got out of my one year of conscription two years ago.
Mandatory military service is a good way to weaken your modern military. Firstly, morale is terrible. Apart from the volunteer professional military people, no one in my company wanted to be there. No one. Everyone saw their military service as something to be endured, something to get over with. Psychological problems were common, including a few suicidal individuals. Discipline was as lax as they could get away with, because running a tighter ship would likely have caused even lower morale.
Secondly, the quality of the soldiers was pretty poor too. You've got guys who just graduated from university, guys who have spent the last four years sitting on their butts playing the latest Blizzard release. These guys can't do two pushups without cramping up, they can't run for more than five minutes without puking. They think firing a gun is like something out of Counterstrike, so not only can't they shoot straight, they're also so startled by how loud actual guns are, some of them actually started hyperventilating.
Thirdly, it doesn't really help with the disconnect between civilians and the military. All you've done is create a disconnect between the "voluntary" forces and the "involuntary" forces. To maintain Taiwan's military strength, the parts of the armed forces most likely to see combat are manned almost entirely by volunteer career troops. This means the majority of combat roles in the navy and air force are volunteers. The parts of the marine corps most likely to see combat are also mostly volunteers, if I'm not mistaken. This means the conscripts are mostly sent to the army, or non-combat roles in the navy and air force.
Now, there is one major difference between the US and Taiwan, I think, which means my experience in Taiwan isn't entirely applicable to a US draft. Taiwan's military focuses almost entirely on defending the island against China. If Taiwan's armed forces see any action, you can bet it's going to be in the Taiwan Strait, or on Taiwanese soil. This means there isn't much in the way of choice when it comes to military action in Taiwan; if China attacks, we fight back. It's that simple.
Contrast that to the US. When was the last time the US military was deployed on American soil, to fight a foreign force? When US troops are deployed, they're almost always sent to fight in other countries. This differs fundamentally from the situation in Taiwan, in that the US has to choose to send their troops abroad. However, implementing a draft won't change much, because the drafted troops will likely have low morale, be of lower quality than volunteer troops, and still won't feel integrated into the "proper" military. Hardly someone you want to send to the deadliest conflict hotspots around the world, right?
If there is a gulf between the military and civilian populations in the US, I think it'd be a good idea to try to bridge it. But I highly doubt a draft is the right way to do it.
Mandatory military service is a good way to weaken your modern military. Firstly, morale is terrible. Apart from the volunteer professional military people, no one in my company wanted to be there. No one. Everyone saw their military service as something to be endured, something to get over with. Psychological problems were common, including a few suicidal individuals. Discipline was as lax as they could get away with, because running a tighter ship would likely have caused even lower morale.
Secondly, the quality of the soldiers was pretty poor too. You've got guys who just graduated from university, guys who have spent the last four years sitting on their butts playing the latest Blizzard release. These guys can't do two pushups without cramping up, they can't run for more than five minutes without puking. They think firing a gun is like something out of Counterstrike, so not only can't they shoot straight, they're also so startled by how loud actual guns are, some of them actually started hyperventilating.
Thirdly, it doesn't really help with the disconnect between civilians and the military. All you've done is create a disconnect between the "voluntary" forces and the "involuntary" forces. To maintain Taiwan's military strength, the parts of the armed forces most likely to see combat are manned almost entirely by volunteer career troops. This means the majority of combat roles in the navy and air force are volunteers. The parts of the marine corps most likely to see combat are also mostly volunteers, if I'm not mistaken. This means the conscripts are mostly sent to the army, or non-combat roles in the navy and air force.
Now, there is one major difference between the US and Taiwan, I think, which means my experience in Taiwan isn't entirely applicable to a US draft. Taiwan's military focuses almost entirely on defending the island against China. If Taiwan's armed forces see any action, you can bet it's going to be in the Taiwan Strait, or on Taiwanese soil. This means there isn't much in the way of choice when it comes to military action in Taiwan; if China attacks, we fight back. It's that simple.
Contrast that to the US. When was the last time the US military was deployed on American soil, to fight a foreign force? When US troops are deployed, they're almost always sent to fight in other countries. This differs fundamentally from the situation in Taiwan, in that the US has to choose to send their troops abroad. However, implementing a draft won't change much, because the drafted troops will likely have low morale, be of lower quality than volunteer troops, and still won't feel integrated into the "proper" military. Hardly someone you want to send to the deadliest conflict hotspots around the world, right?
If there is a gulf between the military and civilian populations in the US, I think it'd be a good idea to try to bridge it. But I highly doubt a draft is the right way to do it.
#26
Zappit
Zappit
Bringing back the draft is far more likely to cause a war INSIDE this country rather than allow us to fight one outside it.
If people don't want to be part of the armed forces, how interested will they be in training? Would they actually fight or say, "Fuck this, I'm getting out of here." How effective can a military force be if a possibly large percentage will not engage the enemy if there is actual combat? Won't that lead to the soldiers that take it seriously getting overwhelmed and butchered? You need reliable soldiers in a unit, and a draft is not going to magically change the mindset of most non-soldiers. With the politicians we have, who have few qualms about throwing our military at whatever, will cause tremendous damage with the first war after a return to the draft. In all likelihood, it will be a war of choice like Iraq. There are people crazy enough nowadays that they'd turn on their superior officers.
The last two necessary wars were World War II and to wipe out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We were actually attacked then. There's not really any large-scale threat out there that would go to war with us, just a few nutjobs scattered about humanity. Any army that would dare to touch down on U.S. soil would not only have to deal with one of the most powerful military forces in history, but legions of armed patriots bearing down on them with high caliber weapons from Walmart. Still volunteer there, by the way.
We would have large scale rioting across the country as soon as such a measure passed. People won't just accept something like that now. Many didn't accept it in the 60's. One Kent State style incident, and the country would erupt. You'd see folks from across the political spectrum come together to smash neighborhoods and burn draft offices.
If people don't want to be part of the armed forces, how interested will they be in training? Would they actually fight or say, "Fuck this, I'm getting out of here." How effective can a military force be if a possibly large percentage will not engage the enemy if there is actual combat? Won't that lead to the soldiers that take it seriously getting overwhelmed and butchered? You need reliable soldiers in a unit, and a draft is not going to magically change the mindset of most non-soldiers. With the politicians we have, who have few qualms about throwing our military at whatever, will cause tremendous damage with the first war after a return to the draft. In all likelihood, it will be a war of choice like Iraq. There are people crazy enough nowadays that they'd turn on their superior officers.
The last two necessary wars were World War II and to wipe out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We were actually attacked then. There's not really any large-scale threat out there that would go to war with us, just a few nutjobs scattered about humanity. Any army that would dare to touch down on U.S. soil would not only have to deal with one of the most powerful military forces in history, but legions of armed patriots bearing down on them with high caliber weapons from Walmart. Still volunteer there, by the way.
We would have large scale rioting across the country as soon as such a measure passed. People won't just accept something like that now. Many didn't accept it in the 60's. One Kent State style incident, and the country would erupt. You'd see folks from across the political spectrum come together to smash neighborhoods and burn draft offices.
#27
strawman
strawman
It REALLY depends on how it's implemented and the reasoning provided. I don't think we need a ready 100 million trained soldiers right now, so a draft doesn't make sense.
But what if, instead, they made college free and mandatory, similar to k-12 schools, and as part of that required weekend training once a month for the four years of schooling, with a two week training camp once a year. In other words, simply make the reserves mandatory.
That would likely result in unhappiness, but not liable to result in rioting.
But what if, instead, they made college free and mandatory, similar to k-12 schools, and as part of that required weekend training once a month for the four years of schooling, with a two week training camp once a year. In other words, simply make the reserves mandatory.
That would likely result in unhappiness, but not liable to result in rioting.
#28
Zappit
Zappit
Now that might work. People would protest. They wouldn't like it. But they might accept it.It REALLY depends on how it's implemented and the reasoning provided. I don't think we need a ready 100 million trained soldiers right now, so a draft doesn't make sense.
But what if, instead, they made college free and mandatory, similar to k-12 schools, and as part of that required weekend training once a month for the four years of schooling, with a two week training camp once a year. In other words, simply make the reserves mandatory.
That would likely result in unhappiness, but not liable to result in rioting.
#29
Eriol
On a related note, I also wonder about the general feelings toward the USA from those in Kuwait, following Iraq 1, and today.
Eriol
I agree with most of your post to an extent, but I know a fair number of people from South Korea. I think they're glad that the UN (and USA) intervened there, considering the difference between North and South Korea today. It's an exception worth mentioning.The last two necessary wars were World War II and to wipe out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
On a related note, I also wonder about the general feelings toward the USA from those in Kuwait, following Iraq 1, and today.
#30
Cajungal
Cajungal
I agree with Congress being more involved and focusing on trying to pay for war in real time--at least part of it. Comparing war efforts at home then and now.. I don't really know if there *is* a comparison. This feeling of division from the effort is a problem, but I don't know if a draft is the answer.
I do know that there's a bad attitude that needs to be snuffed out--a lack of any community feeling or any thought outside of people's own personal lives. Dad and I were talking about how 24-hour news has changed this generation--how we have a feeling of hopelessness because of all that we're exposed to. Now I'm going off on a tangent, but I do believe that there needs to be a balance between living in the moment and only doing what's right for "me" and thinking about the good of the whole country. I've kind of gotten off of the draft and am thinking about related things.
I do know that there's a bad attitude that needs to be snuffed out--a lack of any community feeling or any thought outside of people's own personal lives. Dad and I were talking about how 24-hour news has changed this generation--how we have a feeling of hopelessness because of all that we're exposed to. Now I'm going off on a tangent, but I do believe that there needs to be a balance between living in the moment and only doing what's right for "me" and thinking about the good of the whole country. I've kind of gotten off of the draft and am thinking about related things.
#32
fade
CEOs.
fade
At this rate, it looks like we will anyway. Just "professional political" overlords that have never shown their willingness to put themselves in front of bullets for their country.
We already have the problem of a ruling class that is disconnected from the common citizen.
CEOs.
#33
strawman
We can't let people stop education at high school.
Less than half of our adult population has a 2 year degree or better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
We can try to change our high school curriculum, but I think we'd be better off forcing everyone to get at least an associates degree, and make economics and personal finance courses mandatory. Extend community college charters to offer a basic set of bachelor's degrees, with a focus on STEM, Medicine, and Education.
strawman
Well, honestly, I'm just not sure that this nation will survive economically if we don't raise the average skill set by a significant factor in the next few generations. We've got an advantage, being "first world" but those "third world" countries are going to pick up steam so fast it's going to be surprising. I know a lot of people worry about china, but there's a whole lot of stuff going on in Africa, and with the internet, affordable mobile phones, and a desire to sell to economic world powers, they're going to surpass a number of other economies without much difficulty.Sold
We can't let people stop education at high school.
Less than half of our adult population has a 2 year degree or better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
We can try to change our high school curriculum, but I think we'd be better off forcing everyone to get at least an associates degree, and make economics and personal finance courses mandatory. Extend community college charters to offer a basic set of bachelor's degrees, with a focus on STEM, Medicine, and Education.
#34
Dave
Dave
I think they should have a draft where if you choose not to be in an actual military unit, you could be posted in a state-side support position. If you didn't want to kill anyone that's completely cool. But the military teaches discipline and it would give people who would eventually be in public office have the knowledge of what a service actually is. I know it's not a popular opinion and I'm okay with that.
I'm also in favor of corporal punishment in schools. That's not popular, either.
I'm also in favor of corporal punishment in schools. That's not popular, either.
#35
Zappit
Zappit
The fear of a draft is that the corporate lobbyists will turn our suddenly larger army into an enforcement agent. Get a few new fields for the oil companies. Some nation might nationalize an overseas corporate asset, so that regime has gotta go. We've seen the kind of power they wield over our leaders as it is. We can suddenly mobilize the manpower for such operations with a draft, and we've seen our leaders out and out lie to the world in order to go to war and get their war. There's a definite threat that a small group would suddenly be granted even greater power over the rest of us. Dave mentions how it could influence future leaders, but I can't help but see a path leading there stained with a lot of blood.
#36
Dave
Dave
Corporations didn't start getting powerful until after the mandatory draft ended and politicians were all businessmen and lawyers instead of soldiers and scientists. Not saying there's a correlation, but THERE'S A CORRELATION!
#37
Bowielee
Bowielee
Wait, you're in favor of a stranger hitting your childI think they should have a draft where if you choose not to be in an actual military unit, you could be posted in a state-side support position. If you didn't want to kill anyone that's completely cool. But the military teaches discipline and it would give people who would eventually be in public office have the knowledge of what a service actually is. I know it's not a popular opinion and I'm okay with that.
I'm also in favor of corporal punishment in schools. That's not popular, either.
#38
Dave
Spanking. Yes. Not beating.
Dave
Wait, you're in favor of a stranger hitting your child
Spanking. Yes. Not beating.
#39
Ravenpoe
I honestly don't feel that discipline through violence is a good message to give to children. I don't have any kids myself, but I was a kid once, and I was never spanked growing up.
Ravenpoe
I think they should have a draft where if you choose not to be in an actual military unit, you could be posted in a state-side support position. If you didn't want to kill anyone that's completely cool. But the military teaches discipline and it would give people who would eventually be in public office have the knowledge of what a service actually is. I know it's not a popular opinion and I'm okay with that.
I'm also in favor of corporal punishment in schools. That's not popular, either.
I honestly don't feel that discipline through violence is a good message to give to children. I don't have any kids myself, but I was a kid once, and I was never spanked growing up.
#40
strawman
strawman
Now that I think about the free college and mandatory reserves a bit more, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't resolve some of our gun problems - everyone would receive a physical and mental health check. Now these aren't perfect, but they will probably catch a lot more people for issues that would prevent gun ownership than we are catching now.
But, honestly, I don't think it would ever happen. Just making this sort of thing mandatory is going to raise a significant privacy ruckus. "What, the government gets blood samples and fingerprints for every US citizen? Not on my watch!"
But, honestly, I don't think it would ever happen. Just making this sort of thing mandatory is going to raise a significant privacy ruckus. "What, the government gets blood samples and fingerprints for every US citizen? Not on my watch!"
#41
Bowielee
Bowielee
How exactly do you plan on funding this free college?Now that I think about the free college and mandatory reserves a bit more, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't resolve some of our gun problems - everyone would receive a physical and mental health check. Now these aren't perfect, but they will probably catch a lot more people for issues that would prevent gun ownership than we are catching now.
But, honestly, I don't think it would ever happen. Just making this sort of thing mandatory is going to raise a significant privacy ruckus. "What, the government gets blood samples and fingerprints for every US citizen? Not on my watch!"
#42
strawman
strawman
The same way universal healthcare is being funded, by fairy dust!How exactly do you plan on funding this free college?
#43
TommiR
TommiR
A draft is good for establishing a sizeable reserve of moderately trained personnel. A professional/volunteer force can normally be trained to high levels.
What I think it boils down to is what is most useful for the military defence of your country. If the security challenges you face call for a big reserve, a draft is a good option. If you are best served with a high-tech force requiring extensive training, volunteers may be better. Domestic politics and social engineering are very much secondary considerations in my opinion, and best kept as separate as possible from the running of military affairs. The more non-military aspects you saddle the armed forces with, the more you run the risk of ending up with a watered-down compromise military that doesn't fully satisfy any of the requirements.
Or at least those are my initial impressions on the matter.
I must say that my own experience with the finnish conscript military was not quite so bad as yours. Of the conscripts, there were a few people who liked being there, and a few who had significant problems with military life, but the attitude of most of the rest was pretty neutral and something akin to "well, we're here, so let's just get on with it". I personally found discipline and morale to be more of a factor of the leadership qualities of both the professional and conscript military leaders.
What I think it boils down to is what is most useful for the military defence of your country. If the security challenges you face call for a big reserve, a draft is a good option. If you are best served with a high-tech force requiring extensive training, volunteers may be better. Domestic politics and social engineering are very much secondary considerations in my opinion, and best kept as separate as possible from the running of military affairs. The more non-military aspects you saddle the armed forces with, the more you run the risk of ending up with a watered-down compromise military that doesn't fully satisfy any of the requirements.
Or at least those are my initial impressions on the matter.
All the while it does up the numbers while maintaining reasonable costs. Which solution is better depends on the threat environment, I think.Mandatory military service is a good way to weaken your modern military. Firstly, morale is terrible. Apart from the volunteer professional military people, no one in my company wanted to be there. No one. Everyone saw their military service as something to be endured, something to get over with. Psychological problems were common, including a few suicidal individuals. Discipline was as lax as they could get away with, because running a tighter ship would likely have caused even lower morale.
I must say that my own experience with the finnish conscript military was not quite so bad as yours. Of the conscripts, there were a few people who liked being there, and a few who had significant problems with military life, but the attitude of most of the rest was pretty neutral and something akin to "well, we're here, so let's just get on with it". I personally found discipline and morale to be more of a factor of the leadership qualities of both the professional and conscript military leaders.
That's the thing with universal conscription, the troops start off being just as fit and well-adjusted to military life as the average young man on the street. Though I don't remember any truly hopeless cases; those probably went the conscientious objector route.Secondly, the quality of the soldiers was pretty poor too. You've got guys who just graduated from university, guys who have spent the last four years sitting on their butts playing the latest Blizzard release. These guys can't do two pushups without cramping up, they can't run for more than five minutes without puking. They think firing a gun is like something out of Counterstrike, so not only can't they shoot straight, they're also so startled by how loud actual guns are, some of them actually started hyperventilating.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Some 80% of finnish men have done their military service, which is one of the few things that they have in common. Whether you are a private or a general, you crawled through the same mud in boot camp, and everybody's neck is on the line if shit gets real. While I imagine the communal spirit is not quite what it may be in more exclusive clubs like the US Marines, I think it still exists, and regardless I believe the time spent in the military does give the conscript a greater understanding of and stake in military affairs.Thirdly, it doesn't really help with the disconnect between civilians and the military. All you've done is create a disconnect between the "voluntary" forces and the "involuntary" forces. To maintain Taiwan's military strength, the parts of the armed forces most likely to see combat are manned almost entirely by volunteer career troops. This means the majority of combat roles in the navy and air force are volunteers. The parts of the marine corps most likely to see combat are also mostly volunteers, if I'm not mistaken. This means the conscripts are mostly sent to the army, or non-combat roles in the navy and air force.
I agree entirely. If the draft is re-insituted, it should be done for military reasons, not socio-political ones.If there is a gulf between the military and civilian populations in the US, I think it'd be a good idea to try to bridge it. But I highly doubt a draft is the right way to do it.
#44
bhamv3
bhamv3
I should emphasize that my post comes from a very subjective source, namely my own experiences, the things I saw, heard, and felt.
#45
Krisken
Krisken
Not to mention, if there is a chance for the children of people in power to actually have to serve in a meaningful way (aka, front lines duty), there's less chance of going to war. Funny, that.
#46
Bowielee
Bowielee
If Vietnam taught us anything, it's that those people won't be going to active combat even if there is a draft.Not to mention, if there is a chance for the children of people in power to actually have to serve in a meaningful way (aka, front lines duty), there's less chance of going to war. Funny, that.
#47
SpecialKO
I think this is my primary issue with a draft. Unless you can ensure that the rich and powerful don't get exempt, a draft is just a meat-grinder for questionable military actions.
SpecialKO
If Vietnam taught us anything, it's that those people won't be going to active combat even if there is a draft.
I think this is my primary issue with a draft. Unless you can ensure that the rich and powerful don't get exempt, a draft is just a meat-grinder for questionable military actions.
#48
Krisken
Krisken
Sadly as it stands now it's the only viable option for the poor.I think this is my primary issue with a draft. Unless you can ensure that the rich and powerful don't get exempt, a draft is just a meat-grinder for questionable military actions.
#49
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Sadly as it stands now it's the only viable option for the poor.
#50
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
I feel like Jonathan Swift had a more efficient solution.
#51
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
eating the rich is better imo
#52
GasBandit
GasBandit
Nah, you get leaner meat off the indigent.eating the rich is better imo
#53
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Nothing is quicker and cleaner than a neutron bomb. It will speed up the gentrification of urban areas by seven times...I feel like Jonathan Swift had a more efficient solution.
#54
GasBandit
GasBandit
Actually I was very disappointed when I learned that neutron bombs are not quite what had been described to me - a device that kills all life with no explosion to damage buildings or infrastructure - they still cause nuclear blasts, just in the kiloton range instead of megaton.Nothing is quicker and cleaner than a neutron bomb. It will speed up the gentrification of urban areas by seven times...
#55
Shawn
Shawn
I'd rather not give up the chance to potentially live to see Avengers 3.
#56
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
on second thought, kill me nowI'd rather not give up the chance to potentially live to see Avengers 3.
#57
fade
I don't spank because of personal experience. My dad spanked, my mom grounded. Spanking was scary, but I preferred it because it was done and over with. It didn't feel like much of a deterrent. It didn't have any lasting effects. Grounding though--I wasn't afraid of it per se, but I dreaded it, and I never forgot it.
fade
I honestly don't feel that discipline through violence is a good message to give to children. I don't have any kids myself, but I was a kid once, and I was never spanked growing up.
I don't spank because of personal experience. My dad spanked, my mom grounded. Spanking was scary, but I preferred it because it was done and over with. It didn't feel like much of a deterrent. It didn't have any lasting effects. Grounding though--I wasn't afraid of it per se, but I dreaded it, and I never forgot it.
#58
Bubble181
There are alternatives both ways; personally, I tend to think that, in a lot of cases, especially with small children, a short sharp rap on the hand or something similar is far and away the easiest way to inform them they're doing something wrong (as in, trying to touch the stove, slap their hand away, feel pain, don't try to touch the stove again). Once they're old enough to reason with (say, 4 or 5), spanking or whatever loses much of its use - and there are always exceptions and extremes both ways.
That said, grounding never felt like punishment to me. I didn't have tv or computer in my room, and occasionally my parents even took away my books and, in the end, my light, and I was still perfectly content to sit in my room all by myself for 8 hours on end. Of course, I may not have been the average kid
Bubble181
Firstly, different punishments suit different children differently. Secondly, this also partially applies simply to age. Spanking a 16-year-old is beyond useless, while trying toground a 6 -month-old is equally nonsensical.I don't spank because of personal experience. My dad spanked, my mom grounded. Spanking was scary, but I preferred it because it was done and over with. It didn't feel like much of a deterrent. It didn't have any lasting effects. Grounding though--I wasn't afraid of it per se, but I dreaded it, and I never forgot it.
There are alternatives both ways; personally, I tend to think that, in a lot of cases, especially with small children, a short sharp rap on the hand or something similar is far and away the easiest way to inform them they're doing something wrong (as in, trying to touch the stove, slap their hand away, feel pain, don't try to touch the stove again). Once they're old enough to reason with (say, 4 or 5), spanking or whatever loses much of its use - and there are always exceptions and extremes both ways.
That said, grounding never felt like punishment to me. I didn't have tv or computer in my room, and occasionally my parents even took away my books and, in the end, my light, and I was still perfectly content to sit in my room all by myself for 8 hours on end. Of course, I may not have been the average kid
#59
GasBandit
Spank to firmly, unconditionally get their attention, followed by grounding/timeout to make sure it sticks.
GasBandit
I don't spank because of personal experience. My dad spanked, my mom grounded. Spanking was scary, but I preferred it because it was done and over with. It didn't feel like much of a deterrent. It didn't have any lasting effects. Grounding though--I wasn't afraid of it per se, but I dreaded it, and I never forgot it.
Spank to firmly, unconditionally get their attention, followed by grounding/timeout to make sure it sticks.