Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

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

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.

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.

Fuck that noise.

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.

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.

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

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.

My opinion is fuck no.

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.

Morally? Fuck that shit. But, being a Finn and sharing a huge border with Russia, I see why it is a thing here and in a lot of countries.

As for America, your military seems to have enough people in it, and the US hasn't needed to actually defend itself for a looooong time.

Its slavery no matter how you slice it.