Ask Your Question today
Do you think that a period of at least 2 years of compulsory military service is a good thing or not? Why or why not? Assume it applies equally to males and females. If unable to serve, then you're given a community service job that you are able to perform.
| It's a bad thing | 10 | |
| It depends | 8 | |
| It's a good thing | 4 |
It depends. A draft has a legitimate reason to exist. Volunteer forces are better anyway. But if theres an important enough of a conflict to require able body's to protect the homeland that's kinda why it was put in place. Theres no reason not to keep the draft.
No lol. I mean, we can discuss the topic of morality vs practicality and obligatory servitude based on birth location all day, but if you want my real opinion: most people are way, way to fucking retarded to be touching guns. They shouldn't even be in the same room with guns. They should be supervised whilst using a toaster and not touching guns ever.
Many of the people who willingly join the military are borderline retarded though. The military genuinely does have excellent training methods that do create soldiers out of practically everyone who joins. Sure, some don't cut it but literally almost everyone passes every phase even being very stupid and completely inexperienced. It's ingenious how they train people, really. So I don't find your argument convincing. Also, I did state in my post that those who are not suited to military can be used in some other type of community service instead.
It's not an argument; it's a statement. You can not train stupidity out of people, no matter how superior your training techniques. And yes, you can conscribe those people to a paper pushing desk job, but they shouldn't have those either because they'll just eat the paper. God forbid something important crosses their cubicle.
Perhaps it's not something you can understand unless you've seen it. I was in the military and went through training shoulder to shoulder with people from all backgrounds and intelligence levels. Basic Combat Training, everyone learns the same things at essentially the same pace. Someone dumb as a rock passes just as easily as a smart person, this is how it works. And it DOES work, phenomenally! You don't have to be smart, you're not asked to be smart. You're given instruction and you execute. Almost everyone can do it, of course excepting the handicapped. Your intelligence really only comes into play regarding what your specialty in the military can be. Low scorers get things like infantry, higher scorers can get into intelligence jobs, and there's a lot inbetween. Basic Training is the same for everyone and its done in random groups that include all backgrounds and capabilities. Nearly everyone passes. The only people I witnessed fail was a pregnancy case, a severe injury and 2 AWOL.
I think you have an argument. Unfortunately, it's only half of an argument. I say this because the missing half is avoidance of wasting the talents of highly intelligent people. For example, I am an engineer living in the U.S. Upon receiving my engineering degree, I accepted a position with a defense contractor writing software for high tech combat systems. This work could only be done by people who understood graduate level electrical engineering concepts. Before conscription was discontinued, the United States allowed deferments for the best and brightest young professionals to work on strategic technology in the private sector. These positions required high motivation, or else you were laid off immediately.
Conscription as you describe it, would have prevented the most accurate and survivable systems from being developed. (Note: These systems only encourage peace if they cannot be preemptively destroyed. We knew that, and did not design for "first shot" offensive scenarios.)
A majority of the young generation feels a sense of entitlement and are lazy. I work in an industry that hires a lot of young people and this fits 80% of them. 2 years of military service will make them a stronger, responsible person
We haven't had the draft in the United States in a very long time. When I was a young woman I would have been fine with being drafted into the military, and serving my country, but what I have a problem with is all of these foriegn wars where young American men, and women serve, fight for bullshit reasons and die in these foriegn lands where a lot of people hate Americans anyway.
I would love to see an alternative to fossil fuels come about, because fighting wars over oil is bullshit!
If they’re invading YOUR country then yes, but there’s no real choice anyway.
If it’s a Vietnam type of deal then I will sit in military prison instead.
I think in peace time it’s a bad idea, but in time of war it’s necessary. Hopefully it won’t be needed.
No one uses a draft in peace time. I should really say it's a very stupid move to do so. A draft isnt exactly something you can pull off without everyone catching wind of it. Because the only reason why a draft would be happening in peacetime is because a war is about to get started.
I'm a veteran of nearly a decade in the USN, and I think conscription outside times of national emergency is a crap idea.
As an NCO, I had problems enough with guys who really didn't want to be there, even though they had voluntarily enlisted. (Hell, I didn't _really_ want to be there either - it was just the only decent job I could get at the time - but I put in the effort necessary to understand the game and I played by the rules.)
Throughout history, conscripts who feel no motivation to play their part in a significant national effort which they believe in have always been more trouble than they were worth. They consume a disproportionate amount of the time and energy of senior people, they can erode the morale of those who do have some degree of dedication to the cause, they often can't be relied on to do their duty, and they definitely shouldn't be expected to go above and beyond the minimum asked of them.
Do you think the attitude is different in places where conscription is already a cultural norm? Maybe this issue would wane after conscription was "normalized" in the populace?
Do you see any upsides to a mandatory period of service?
I'm not an expert on the Israeli defence forces, but my understanding is that conscription is still in force there (apart from the ultra-orthodox idiots who exempt), and it works for them. However, that's a pretty unique situation, since there's a social consensus that the country is surrounded by antagonistic forces, and effective defence is accepted to be a matter of survival. So, like I said, motivation and belief in the national cause comes into play. I also believe that military discipline in the IDF is very different to what's seen in most military forces, so there not being an enormous difference between military and civilian life might make people less reluctant to serve.
Although I didn't find my time in the Navy a positive thing on the whole - and if I were to be magically transported back to the age I was when I signed up, I'd work harder to find an alternative - it wasn't a wholly negative experience. If a young person is willing to play by the rules and accept that others have authority over them for a few years, it's possible to learn some useful practical, team-work and general life skills, and internalising some discipline in terms of working habits, personal hygiene and attention to how one presents themselves can be useful in the civilian world.
But the problem is that some young people simply aren't willing to bend to authority. Basically, they're toddlers in adult bodies, and expecting that the military environment will result in them growing up is a huge ask. Sometimes it works, but often it's a huge hassle for everyone who has to deal with the kid.