After doing a quick wiki search 37 countries still require mandatory military service, while 55 do not. What is your thought? I'm all for a 2 year mandatory military service....here in the US. I actually think our politicians would think twice about sending their children to combat and we could potentially avoid costly needless wars. As well as have a huge military reserve in the event of another World War. Does anyone agree? As always the religious, philosophical and conscientious objections come up...I guess we could keep those in the rear with the gear, or send them to Alaska or Guam, or Cuba, or is that unfair. I don't want to be on the front line with anyone that doesn't want to be there. Would conscription improve the quality of personnel in the service as well as improve the quality of the citizen, once discharged? Or am I looking at this with rose-colored glasses?
Posted 10 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
Also to consider, do you think that women should also be included?
Responses: 6
You already said it yourself. I don't want to be on the front lines with people who don't want to be there. Currently, not counting those who can't qualify, 98% or so of our country don't want to be there. Not just conscience objectors. So, no I don't want a conscripted service requirement. I want to be in the right with fellas who joined up and want to be there.
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Keep your head on a swivel, keep moving and watch the man to the right and left of you. Return home safe brother. Ty for serving. I am enjoying the very freedom you are protecting....I won't let you down. Still doing my part.
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Reading a previos survey on RP, it seems 46% support mandatory conscription of both men and women for 18-24 months, and 44% support it the way it is....just saying, there is no right or wrong answer.
Practical reasons for opposing mandatory service; a draft would actually exacerbate the manpower problem. I know that's counter-intuitive. If we allow conscript troops we have to reorganize a force that we are already trying to reorganize. In fact we'll have to completely scrap the recently completed Transformation. Conscripts require greater supervision than volunteers. That means a greater need for NCOs, especially junior NCOs. When you do this it increases the size of the Team (the smallest element of an army unit), this increases the size of the squad, the platoon, the company and all the way up. We have to buy more trucks and we have to scrap or APCs the Bradleys and Strykers, that were designed to carry a squad each.
But that really isn't the heavy factor here. The one thing that absolutely will have to change is Basic Training. With crops of recruits arriving at the induction centers who are not self-motivated to be there, motivation must be imposed externally. That was accomplished, when we had conscription, by Drill Sergeants who were allowed to beat the tar out of recruits that did not do as they were told or who overtly challenged the authority of the training structure. In 2005 there was a batch of Drill Sergeants and a Company Commander disciplined for comparatively mild mistreatment of recruits. Perhaps the idea that someone's sweet boy might have to face a Full Metal Jacket-like R. Lee Ermy type appeals, I know for many it would. But I don't believe that a society that shrank from casualties in Iraq that were far less than the number of killed on our roads here at home could handle this idea.
But that really isn't the heavy factor here. The one thing that absolutely will have to change is Basic Training. With crops of recruits arriving at the induction centers who are not self-motivated to be there, motivation must be imposed externally. That was accomplished, when we had conscription, by Drill Sergeants who were allowed to beat the tar out of recruits that did not do as they were told or who overtly challenged the authority of the training structure. In 2005 there was a batch of Drill Sergeants and a Company Commander disciplined for comparatively mild mistreatment of recruits. Perhaps the idea that someone's sweet boy might have to face a Full Metal Jacket-like R. Lee Ermy type appeals, I know for many it would. But I don't believe that a society that shrank from casualties in Iraq that were far less than the number of killed on our roads here at home could handle this idea.
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I'm not in disagreement with you...and we'll aware of our current budget constraints. My comment is a bit longer and mostly to your post. Thanks for bringing me back to reality. What young adult wants to be forced to do something they don't want to? The simple fact that it is an all volunteer force makes it what it is...I wish our population had a little more patriotism...a sense of pride and dury.
SSG(P) (Join to see)
When was the military and politics ever practical....? Lol Common sense is not that common. Our future wars will have to include a virtual component (UAV, drones, tactical air strikes) the military must adapt to the enemy, not to the political agenda.
SSG(P) (Join to see), I'm with you. I'm all for mandatory military (or civil) service, and I think 18 or 24 months is about the right length. The conscientious objectors and others who cannot perform military service for various reasons should have a civil service option (hospitals, schools, community service, etc.).
There's an RP survey on this topic. I'll find it and post it here. Here's one survey on this topic:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/mandatory-military-service
There's an RP survey on this topic. I'll find it and post it here. Here's one survey on this topic:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/mandatory-military-service
Would you support mandatory military service for citizens once they turn 18? | RallyPoint
Also to consider, do you think that women should also be included?
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google