NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you feel about forced conscription into armed services?

Not good?

How do you feel about forced conscription into armed services?

Not good?

sorry there was poll with this just had to put in all the options.

I don't think that a draft should be instigated except MAYBE in the most extreme circumstances... e.g. invasion of one's country.

I don't think that a draft should be instigated except MAYBE in the most extreme circumstances... e.g. invasion of one's country.

We don't need a draft at all, I mean if America was actually invaded, there would be no need for a draft, because there would be so many people lining up to join the army on there own without actually having to force people.

How do you feel about forced conscription into armed services?

A terrible idea.

Forced conscription would likely result in a lower calibre of soldiers; lower overall troop morale and a greater chance of low-loyalty to one's national cause as not everyone would share the same vision for the future or wish to serve.

People who are forced to do certain tasks against their will will rebel in subtle ways if they know they can.

EDIT - if a nation is invaded, people will feel the desire to defend it even if they don't agree with their government because it's a matter of sovereignty. It would be like your neighbour making casual use of your backyard without your permission. While you don't actively try and keep them away, you get offended and take action when they breach that line.

I would like to say never but I guess in reality if the very existence of the country was threatened then it might be reasonable

If there is ever a war that threatens our country to the point where a draft is required, I'll enlist. I won't be drafted because I'll sign up first.

(Besides, with a college degree I have a good shot of being commissioned as a second lieutenant)

In certain, exceptional circumstances - and I'm thinking along the lines of what Hitler did to the Romany, Jews and Slavs of Eastern Europe - it would be acceptable to form conscript forces. After all, in that case it is literally "fight or die".

Otherwise, I would never countenance conscription.

A terrible idea.

Forced conscription would likely result in a lower calibre of soldiers; lower overall troop morale and a greater chance of low-loyalty to one's national cause as not everyone would share the same vision for the future or wish to serve.

People who are forced to do certain tasks against their will will rebel in subtle ways if they know they can.

EDIT - if a nation is invaded, people will feel the desire to defend it even if they don't agree with their government because it's a matter of sovereignty. It would be like your neighbour making casual use of your backyard without your permission. While you don't actively try and keep them away, you get offended and take action when they breach that line.

what about if a neighboring country was being invaded by an extremely hostile aggressor?

what about if a neighboring country was being invaded by an extremely hostile aggressor?

One could help if the plea was issue, but there would be no need for conscription. The government could instead provide incentive. Of course, going to war would just aggravate already volatile situation...

Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Freedom isn't free; the price is eternal vigilance. Every able-bodied man must be prepared to support this nation's glorious ideals through military force against our fiendish foes. Thus, I believe that military service in some capacity should be mandatory for all those aged 18-21; aside from the obvious benefits to our national security, it would also help build moral fiber in a dangerously depraved generation of miscreants and delinquents.

My conscription has expired. They called and asked me to renew, but I've decided not to. They offered me a snazzy telephone shaped like an IED and the Swimsuit Issue, but I still turned them down. *nod* :)

Freedom isn't free; the price is eternal vigilance. Every able-bodied man must be prepared to support this nation's glorious ideals through military force against our fiendish foes. Thus, I believe that military service in some capacity should be mandatory for all those aged 18-21; aside from the obvious benefits to our national security, it would also help build moral fiber in a dangerously depraved generation of miscreants and delinquents.

Lemme guess: You're 22.

Lemme guess: You're 22.

I resent your implication!

And yes, I'm over 21.

How do you feel about forced conscription into armed services?

Not okay, man. Not okay.

Hey, I thought FAG was dead.

Hey, I thought FAG was dead.

I am alive and well, thank you for asking. However, I do not frequent this forum often as I have more constructive uses of my time.

I am alive and well, thank you for asking. However, I do not frequent this forum often as I have more constructive uses of my time.

I knew it! You breed pandas, don't you?!

How do you feel about forced conscription into armed services?

Nope, never okay.

The chances of full invasion at this point is slim for the U.S and most of Europe, but if we were then conscription wouldn't be needed. We would fight in the streets with our large amount of liscenced firearms.

I knew it! You breed pandas, don't you?!

I think he works for Panda Patties. [/SC REFERENCE]

I think that there should be some form of national service for a couple of years sometime during your teens early twenties.

I don't think it should be purely (or even mainly) martial in nature but more based around conservation and civil works.

It would have numerous benifits:

-instills sense of national ownership (if you've been building bus shelters are you going to spray paint them?)

-would mix people from different backgrounds (meaning lower levels of racial and religious problems due to common shared experiences)

-would help people at a difficult time of their lives (I would love this kind of experience especially during my teens it would have been a great help)

-would mean that young people would be a lot fitter

Living in a country that still endorses this medieval habit I can tell it sucks. In a democratic country no man should be made to join the army against ones will. There are two other options ofcourse. You can do civil service which is more than twice longer and if you refuse you'll go to jail for more than a year. Going to jail for "not doing your service", which I can't see as a real crime, and getting several times longer sentence than say, for a rape, is totally immoral, irrational abdomination of justice.

Goverment says that its cheap, yet produces good quality troops. When you drag people against their will and mix them up together I wouldn't call it quite doesn't create the great patriotic frenzy as they would hope. It rather stirs the worst side of human nature. Things that go on there are definedly sometimes quite far from "military honor or discipline".

Is it economic? Sure its cheaper to train them, since a conscript is basicly a slave, but just wait for few years. Most forget pretty much everything they learn and are as in poor shape as they were when they entered the army.Now thats a model soldier to serve in war (which we would anyway definedly loose if such would occur).

I knew it! You breed pandas, don't you?!

I don't just breed them; I'm training an army of them to take over the world. Behold!

http://unaesthetic.net/stuff/panda.jpg

I don't just breed them; I'm training an army of them to take over the world. Behold!

http://unaesthetic.net/stuff/panda.jpg

:eek: Oh shit! An Army of Christian Conservative Pandas! DOOOMM!!!! :eek:

It would have numerous benifits:


-instills sense of national ownership (if you've been building bus shelters are you going to spray paint them?)

-would mix people from different backgrounds (meaning lower levels of racial and religious problems due to common shared experiences)

-would help people at a difficult time of their lives (I would love this kind of experience especially during my teens it would have been a great help)

-would mean that young people would be a lot fitter

Let me write how it would be in reality:

-instills sense of national ownership (if you've been building bus shelters are you going to spray paint them?)

That would happen to majority, who wouldn't do it in anyway, the rest would just get even a bigger joy of spraying them.

-would mix people from different backgrounds (meaning lower levels of racial and religious problems due to common shared experiences)

Army is pretty much the exact opposite to a place where "people unite for some greater bullshit". When you drag different kind of people in a place like army, which completely is built on ranks, people would definedly not unite, discrimination would be very rich, as army seems to appeal to people who enjoy to take out all the joy out of their position. Normal school is a lot better place to mix different people.

-would help people at a difficult time of their lives (I would love this kind of experience especially during my teens it would have been a great help)

That's cute, well theres no one to stop people from joining the army "to get them over hard times". But the majority of people like to solve their problems, not to push them aside by giving oneself something else to think. I do have to admit that there are few people who actually benefit from army and perhaps it gives them some healthy discipline, but there are other things that should teach that.

-would mean that young people would be a lot fitter

Sure, for six months, wait a few years and they're precisely like they were before the army.;)

what about if a neighboring country was being invaded by an extremely hostile aggressor?

I knew it! Belize always DID look aggressive! >_>

I am thoroughly uncomfortable with aggressive environments and playing any part in assisting with organisations based on killing people, so I would strongly object to anything that required me to have anything to do with the army. If there were a form of national service without any military overtones that could involve some sort of assistance for the underpriviliged or charitable causes then fine I guess.

FAG: I'm glad to hear it.

"No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has." - Robert Heinlein

I'm in favor of a draft in times of extreme need, although I think that people will voluntarily enlist in good enough numbers when a real threat comes along.

Freedom isn't free; the price is eternal vigilance. Every able-bodied man must be prepared to support this nation's glorious ideals through military force against our fiendish foes. Thus, I believe that military service in some capacity should be mandatory for all those aged 18-21; aside from the obvious benefits to our national security, it would also help build moral fiber in a dangerously depraved generation of miscreants and delinquents.

I would vomit if we contradicted the very essence of liberty by forcefully obligating those who value it into a station that does not match their will. The reason why the United States of America has such a prestigious force, in terms of combat readiness and effectiveness, is because those employed by the military have entered on their own accord.

To have men and women fighting for my freedom, piratically as slaves, again would make me sick to my stomach. The United States of America does not exploit slave drones with rifles. They exploit narrow minded warriors and impoverished youth who require something to validate their existence.

Freedom isn't free; the price is eternal vigilance. Every able-bodied man must be prepared to support this nation's glorious ideals through military force against our fiendish foes. Thus, I believe that military service in some capacity should be mandatory for all those aged 18-21; aside from the obvious benefits to our national security, it would also help build moral fiber in a dangerously depraved generation of miscreants and delinquents.

I would vomit if we contradicted the very essence of liberty by forcefully obligating those who value it into a station that does not match their will. The reason why the United States of America has such a prestigious force, in terms of combat readiness and effectiveness, is because those employed by the military have entered on their own accord.

To have men and women fighting for my freedom, piratically as slaves, again would make me sick to my stomach. The United States of America does not exploit slave drones with rifles. They exploit narrow minded warriors and impoverished youth who require something to validate their existence.

Forcing people to train as killers is always wrong.

Forced national service? Ha! The G-men can conscript my dead body, that's all they'll get!

Yes, in a war that actually involved attacks by nation states on my own country.

Not "let's kill some Arabs because we can, and they look a bit shifty".

More "oh, right, we've been bombed by the French, and they're shelling Scarborough night and day. Time to fight back ruthlessly, methinks."

Forced national service? Ha! The G-men can conscript my dead body, that's all they'll get!

Well maybe they're just doing what the G-man in Half-life said, taking away the illusion of free choice. :eek:

I think that there should be some form of national service for a couple of years sometime during your teens early twenties.

I don't think it should be purely (or even mainly) martial in nature but more based around conservation and civil works.

That is interesting. And given the site you are posting it on, rather brave.

It varies from country to country in the age it goes to, but any western country already has enforced service for young people. It is called compulsory education. It is "for their own good" but also as a social unifyer, like your second point below. Some might say it is enforced child-care, or even "start your life in jail."

I didn't find school so bad, actually. But I had a happy childhood, and school was pretty much the worst thing about it.

Perhaps "service" could be considered a part of education. An education in civics and in work -- work which achieves some aim beyond proving oneself in tests and assessments.

It would have numerous benifits:

-instills sense of national ownership (if you've been building bus shelters are you going to spray paint them?)

It does. Education "for the kid's own good" actually divides kids into seperate classes: those who accept it really benefit, those who don't are harmed by it, even if a few facts are drummed into their heads.

Luckily, adult society is a lot more diverse and sophistocated than School. There are many more ways to succeed. (More ways to fail, too, I suppose.)

Yes to the Service. No to the Discipline. "Self-discipline" is not instilled by "following orders."

-would mix people from different backgrounds (meaning lower levels of racial and religious problems due to common shared experiences)

100% agree. My analogy with school fits OK.

-would help people at a difficult time of their lives (I would love this kind of experience especially during my teens it would have been a great help)

What, the late teens? Sure, it can be a very difficult time. The freedom of adulthood is confusing for some (well, it was a bad time for me too) ... but take freedom away from all youths, to "level the playing field"? I just can't take that.

-would mean that young people would be a lot fitter

Which could be good, depending on the individual. I think a simpler solution is physical work in school. Sport is fine, it works for some kids ... but when there is no practical consequence, when the physical activity is not work it tends toward competition. Competition is not in itself bad, but it is not sufficient as a reason to do physical exercise. There is self-discipline, there are the health benefits, and until the day we have personal robots, there is work to be done.

---------------

In summary, I liked your post. It made me think, and it was refreshingly free of "what is wrong with kids today" moralistic rubbish.

But perhaps I'm seeing too much in your "not necessarily martial" clause. I'd go further than that, and say that the state should offer a limited period of Service to youths on graduation from school (or perhaps as an option while still in school). Not enforce it, but offer it on such attractive terms that it would be almost universally accepted. That service would involve real work, like building infrastructure or providing welfare, with an option of martial training, leading into military service (voluntarily, after training.)

Within that Service, there would obviously be a degree of compulsion, of externally applied discipline. But not the humiliation common in military induction. Not the teaching-to-kill and the idea that the worst possible act is insubordination. Dishonourable discharge would be a very bad thing, if Service was considered a part of education ... worse than flunking school.

I have not served a day in the armed forces, btw. I'm not claiming any personal knowledge of the benefits of military service. I would be neither surprised nor offended to hear service personnel tell me I'm not soldier material. This is just my 2 Rwandan centimes' worth.

I would vomit if we contradicted the very essence of liberty by forcefully obligating those who value it into a station that does not match their will. The reason why the United States of America has such a prestigious force, in terms of combat readiness and effectiveness, is because those employed by the military have entered on their own accord.

Nothing to do with the weaponry they're toting, then?

To have men and women fighting for my freedom, piratically as slaves, again would make me sick to my stomach. The United States of America does not exploit slave drones with rifles. They exploit narrow minded warriors and impoverished youth who require something to validate their existence.

"Slaves" is too strong. A slave has only one alternative to service, and that is death. Thus, I hate terms like "wage slave" which cheapen the concept of slavery.

Otherwise, yeah I take your point. Massively disrespectful of "the troops" but I can stomach it. Strong terms are just words, after all ... and you're not so wrong.

Freedom isn't free; the price is eternal vigilance. Every able-bodied man must be prepared to support this nation's glorious ideals through military force against our fiendish foes. Thus, I believe that military service in some capacity should be mandatory for all those aged 18-21; aside from the obvious benefits to our national security, it would also help build moral fiber in a dangerously depraved generation of miscreants and delinquents.

Just because I'm bored, I'm going to pick this argument apart.

Freedom isn't free; the price is eternal vigilance.

Granted. But only in the sense that rights and freedom are a social construct and bare little meaning outside of it, and therefore must be defended with force in order to exist. Otherwise, its more or less irrelevant.

Every able-bodied man must be prepared to support this nation's glorious ideals through military force against our fiendish foes.

A tad wordy and loaded there, innit? But, I digress.

What if the person has no will to? What if the person has no heart in it? There would be a good opportunity for internal-collapse in the event of an unwilling conscription. Secondly, I have to ask why our foes are "fiendish." Do they simply disagree with us, or is it deeper than that?

Thus, I believe that military service in some capacity should be mandatory for all those aged 18-21; aside from the obvious benefits to our national security, it would also help build moral fiber in a dangerously depraved generation of miscreants and delinquents.

The problem, again, lies in that, unless there is a desire and will to serve, there will be internal conflict, desertion, and such. Additionally, the benefit of national security can be resolved much more effectively through other means and building moral fiber is a tad unrealistic considering you are forced to serve, whether you actually want to or not.

As for the last bit... again, a tad verbose. Nonetheless, though, there are far more productive ways to mitigate youth-related crime as opposed to conscription, which if anything will concentrate and magnify it.


In conclusion, I have to say that most of your posts, FreedomAndGlory, sound disturbingly like propaganda posts. No offense meant, its just an observation.

Only in times of war.

Forced conscription to support freedom is impossible because forced conscription means that freedom has already lost.