Compulsory Military Service

[Nightingales]

So a matter of debate came up today when I revealed I was enlisting in the military, and that was a matter of if everybody should serve, instead of simply volunteers. And I'm aware the Draft exists, but I think it's on a bit of a different level than having everybody not medically disqualified serve for a period of time (say, five years or so).

So I wanted to bring this to you guys, because it was interesting to see the reasons people think you should or shouldn't be made to serve a certain amount of years. Personally, I think you should, but I'm a bit biased on the matter since I'm going in anyways. But what do you guys think?

(Mods, if this exists, I didn't see it. Whoops.)

 

[tehy]

It fosters a sense of community, and provides common experiences among the entire country. It also makes war much harder to wage politically; in Israel, the deaths of a relatively small amount of soldiers is politically huge.

Also makes self-defense much easier.

 

[Yoshi King]

lol what the fuck is this. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather not have governments blow money on MORE military bullshit.

It fosters a sense of community, and provides common experiences among the entire country.

It also sets back young men and women who want to enter higher education (college or university) and gives a needless boost to all of the armstech corporations. Fuck that noise.

 

[tehy]

It also sets back young men and women who want to enter higher education (college or university)

Pretty much all of these systems in the modern era explicitly allow deferment for a college degree. Though frankly, looking at colleges nowadays, I think people could do with either not going or becoming more mature before they do go.

and gives a needless boost to all of the armstech corporations. Fuck that noise.

Not much of one, frankly. Most of the important gear you need is going to be passed down as people leave and new ones enter (that includes weapons)

 

[Soul Fly]

It fosters a sense of community, and provides common experiences among the entire country. It also makes war much harder to wage politically; in Israel, the deaths of a relatively small amount of soldiers is politically huge.

I think there are better ways to foster a community than mandatory military service. Obvious problems aside with this "sense of community" you speak of; going deeper this community is a purely homosocial space, based around the rhetoric of "brotherhood" and the emotion of manly camaraderie. The same problem also extends to this common experience you speak of. Your perception of a community and the visible fabric of the people who matter is almost purely male. It visibly entrenches the gender roles of the protectors, the vanguard - and the protected, the womenfolk and kids back home. All this aids to a very chauvinist perception of nationalism, because the best among us were the ones who stood at the trenches. It's a virtue signalling by the state that places the military man (and by extension the community of the army) at a pedestal.

That is not a form of community I like nor one I will be comfortable with in the 21st century.

The rest is arguable. It's also much easier to appeal to protectionist sentiments or a call for arms against the outsider. In case of certain countries it is used as a state apparatus to drill in "ideal" lifestyles and psyches. the state don't give a fuck if have you a moral objection against violence, or the forced induction into an armed institution, or even basic anxiety or an aversion against violence. If you're physically of age and medically fit you're supposed to man the fuck up and do it because the men of this country aren't supposed to be nansy pussies hurr durr STRONGTH.

Also makes self-defense much easier.

same goes for aggression.

 

[Soul Fly]

also tagging more people who can probably talk firsthand about this shit: Yilx sandshrewz

 

[tehy]

Obvious problems aside with this "sense of community" you speak of; going deeper this community is a purely homosocial space, based around the rhetoric of "brotherhood" and the emotion of manly camaraderie. '

You do realise that there are women in this too right

Real talk - you don't fucking know me or my experiences. And I love that 'men bonding' is somehow a bad thing?

It visibly entrenches the gender roles of the protectors, the vanguard - and the protected, the womenfolk and kids back home. All this aids to a very chauvinist perception of nationalism, because the best among us were the ones who stood at the trenches.

Given that this proposal introduces vastly more gender equality than the current military, you are at best complaining that men go out and defend us and are honored for doing so (granted, our recent wars haven't exactly been defense, but that's a separate issue.)

The rest is arguable. It's also much easier to appeal to protectionist sentiments or a call for arms against the outsider.

This is the opposite of reality

In case of certain countries it is used as a state apparatus to drill in "ideal" lifestyles and psyches.

Given that these certain countries are probably China or Russia I bet we can avoid that problem.

the state don't give a fuck if have you a moral objection against violence, or the forced induction into an armed institution, or even basic anxiety or an aversion against violence.

Is this conclusion based on anything other than 'things pulled from soul fly's rooty-tooty patootie' ?

Someone has to cook for all these soldiers, you know? There are all kinds of support and logistics jobs that can and are filled by men and women in the military. If your problem is morally just being a part of military enterprise, you technically do that just by living in this or any other country, so...

same goes for aggression.

What makes aggression really easy is when only certain segments of the population serve in the military, so only they are at risk. When your entire population knows a soldier that could die, war actually becomes quite difficult.

 

[vonFiedler]

Real talk - you don't fucking know me or my experiences.

He never said he did, calm down.

 

[internet]

While you're at it, maybe force people to work a government-assigned job for all of their life. The human resources of the state will be spent more efficiently that way. Mandatory military service is literally slavery.

 

[Ironstrongma]

In my opinion I think that people shouldn't be forced to serve in the military just because I think that it's an unnecessary policy to have. Certainly the militaries of quite a few countries are large enough without conscripting the whole population for five years when they reach a certain age or something.
I also think that even though there are many other jobs apart from front line troops, some people will end up unwillingly going into combat and although there are no where near as many deaths in wars now since ww1 + ww2 due to smart weapons and defence systems inevitably some serving soldiers may fall victim to war (whether it be an injury that unfortunately impacts the person's life, a mental disorder most commonly post traumatic stress disorder or worst of all death) and this would be the most tragic thing of all as these victims did not even want to go in the first place.
I would also like to add that I am not against the military in fact I support the military and know many people who want to sign up or are already a part of the forces. I just think that for people who don't want to join they shouldn't have to in order to unnecessarily boost military numbers.

 

[Ortheore]

Fuck the military and fuck making it compulsory. Sure, let's force everyone to spend a pivotal period of their lives perpetuating a violent nationalistic ideology instead of pursuing their passions and dreams and trying to make the world better in their own way.

My perspective on the military (not even mandatory service, any form of military involvement) is that it's morally repugnant and I would oppose it except where some other nation were intent on attacking you (and even then I'd only go along with it if I felt the attacking nation was in some way worse to live than the current one, but this is true for almost every nation in the world so w/e). This stems from what I said before- it's both violent and nationalistic, two things I think are morally abhorrent. Violence is obvious- the military trains you to kill people, and there's no room to ask whether you're morally justified in taking a life. Even if you don't actually have to kill anyone in your period of military service, you're still facilitating such actions. Then there's the fact that your actions are in service of whatever the government deems to be in the national interest. This in no way provides moral justification, and it may ultimately mean that a given military action overall makes life worse for most people. Often your own nation's interests will come at the expense of people elsewhere, and when you're participating in something that is inherently violent this is exacerbated.

Regarding other stuff:

The rest is arguable. It's also much easier to appeal to protectionist sentiments or a call for arms against the outsider.

This is the opposite of reality

What. Even in western media we routinely see groups being reduced to some sort of general threat. In my own country, refugees are demonised to gain political leverage, as they are characterised as the threat of "boat people", being potential terrorists, criminals and "illegals". The same effect can be seen any time the media discusses the "threat of terror", which then gets used to justify governments taking certain measures because of an exaggerated threat to the nation

Given that these certain countries are probably China or Russia I bet we can avoid that problem.

Do you really think that only non-western countries are guilty of this? Why? At the very least would you not say it instils a patriotic ideology?

Someone has to cook for all these soldiers, you know? There are all kinds of support and logistics jobs that can and are filled by men and women in the military. If your problem is morally just being a part of military enterprise, you technically do that just by living in this or any other country, so...

The fact that we have no choice in supporting it to some extent doesn't undermine an anti-militaristic perspective. This isn't binary, there's a big difference between being forced to pay taxes and therefore help fund the military and actually devoting your time and labour to the military

What makes aggression really easy is when only certain segments of the population serve in the military, so only they are at risk. When your entire population knows a soldier that could die, war actually becomes quite difficult.

I feel like you missed the point of what he was saying. If people are trained to fight, then ability to harm others increases similarly to capacity for self-defense.

 

[tehy]

Fuck the military and fuck making it compulsory. Sure, let's force everyone to spend a pivotal period of their lives perpetuating a violent nationalistic ideology instead of pursuing their passions and dreams and trying to make the world better in their own way.

Israel has something of an allowance for other types of civil service. I wouldn't mind such an allowance to an extent, as long as the same sense of community exists.

What. Even in western media we routinely see groups being reduced to some sort of general threat. In my own country, refugees are demonised to gain political leverage, as they are characterised as the threat of "boat people", being potential terrorists, criminals and "illegals". The same effect can be seen any time the media discusses the "threat of terror", which then gets used to justify governments taking certain measures because of an exaggerated threat to the nation

this has what to do with mandatory military service?

Do you really think that only non-western countries are guilty of this? Why? At the very least would you not say it instils a patriotic ideology?

I mean, frankly, our country really isn't guilty of this. People who believe that it does are a solid 20 years behind the times, at the least. The army as a mandatory service might inspire some patriotism, yes; I don't think that's really a bad thing, as long as you're willing to face the bad parts of our society. There are plenty of good parts to be proud of, as well as bad parts we could afford to fix. If anything, patriotism can encourage the latter.

The fact that we have no choice in supporting it to some extent doesn't undermine an anti-militaristic perspective. This isn't binary, there's a big difference between being forced to pay taxes and therefore help fund the military and actually devoting your time and labour to the military

I guess I just find the absolute pacifist mindset silly; if there are people that want to kill you, are you not in favor of at least supporting those willing to protect you? Now, if you have problems with specific wars or aggressions that's a different story, but even in those cases you are still assisting.

I feel like you missed the point of what he was saying. If people are trained to fight, then ability to harm others increases similarly to capacity for self-defense.

we have enough raw military capacity for that already. what we especially have is the ability to advocate for war with rhetoric and votes because you personally won't be affected and neither will anyone you know. That's far more likely to cause war than simple military capacity. We might technically be more equipped for war, but we sure as hell wouldn't be doing it more often...

 

[Shinryu]

Could always go the Heinlein route where if you don't serve a minimum, you aren't considered a citizen and don't get to vote...

 

[Ortheore]

this has what to do with mandatory military service?

Don't ask me, I didn't bring it up. But I find it interesting, so can you respond or nah?

I mean, frankly, our country really isn't guilty of this. People who believe that it does are a solid 20 years behind the times, at the least. The army as a mandatory service might inspire some patriotism, yes; I don't think that's really a bad thing, as long as you're willing to face the bad parts of our society. There are plenty of good parts to be proud of, as well as bad parts we could afford to fix. If anything, patriotism can encourage the latter.

There are other things I can discuss off the top of my head- suppression of critical thinking and dehumanisation of "other" people in order to view them as enemies. I'm fairly certain these are universal tendencies among military forces, as they can't function if soldiers are constantly questioning orders or simply can't bring themselves to kill enemies. Point is I think it's really dangerous to assume your government/military wouldn't do that kind of thing. I don't want to come off as a crazy conspiracy nut because I'm not (I swear!!1!!) it's just yeah, I find that a really toxic assumption. I cbf writing a whole deal on patriotism (I really loathe it) but I'm sceptical of patriotism encouraging others to fix flaws in their society- for me I see patriotism as tending to gloss over the flaws of that nation

I guess I just find the absolute pacifist mindset silly; if there are people that want to kill you, are you not in favor of at least supporting those willing to protect you? Now, if you have problems with specific wars or aggressions that's a different story, but even in those cases you are still assisting.

I can only assume this question is directed to me despite the fact that I made my answer pretty clear in my previous post, but I feel like pointing out that having problems with specific wars or w/e really shouldn't be the exception to the rule

 

[River Martini]

Been through 2 year compulsory military service, won't argue whether it is slavery or not. Of course it drains 2 years of my life but I live in a very small country with 2 shitty neighbours so I guess military is a form of great deterrence. (seriously, Malaysia and Indonesia have retarded politicians). But I did have fun in the 2 years and grew much fitter.

 

[Billy the Uncle]

I don't like compulsory military service and I believe the current system of professional armed forces is the right way to go.

I mean, if someone wants to serve (maybe "work" is a better word) in the military because you believe it's right, because of natural talent, or just because you can't find a better job, then let him/her do that.

I am young enough that I didn't have to undergo compulsory military service, and I met a lot of older people who told me that military service helps to build character, makes you more mature and stuff like that. I don't really believe that though. I don't really but into the "camaraderie" thing either. Or the "serve your country" thing. Or the patriotism thing. I think they're quite outdated concepts.

The funny thing is that I have a father who served in the armed forces for 37 years. Yet he never tried to imbue me with patriotic ideas, and he was less strict of a dad than many others I know who had "civilian" jobs.

 

[sandshrewz]

also tagging more people who can probably talk firsthand about this shit: Yilx sandshrewz

Aye it seems that I have been summoned to this thread. For context, I just recently finished my ~2 year mandatory national service. I'll try to discuss about w/e I guess and get on to OP. I'm just gonna assume we're solely discussing mandatory military service.

It fosters a sense of community, and provides common experiences among the entire country. It also makes war much harder to wage politically; in Israel, the deaths of a relatively small amount of soldiers is politically huge.

Also makes self-defense much easier.

'sense of community' etc sentiments are more of a side effect of military service. It's a small boon that hardly makes a different as to whether there should or shouldn't be military service. Not sure if you meant that as a main point or simply thought that up first haha.

lol what the fuck is this. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather not have governments blow money on MORE military bullshit.

It also sets back young men and women who want to enter higher education (college or university) and gives a needless boost to all of the armstech corporations. Fuck that noise.

Mandatory military service is a need basis thing. Having it doesn't mean that the government will have to spend more on defense, and neither does it go the other way round. If you don't have military service, but your country still needs defenses (I mean of course it does), and your current defense force isn't sufficient, then the country probably has to spend even more on mercenaries etc to fortify their defense.

Yea definitely it sets back men. That's a given downside. But in countries with a need for it, the upsides surpass the cons. Regarding corporations, as long as your country doesn't mindless or poorly spend money and feed companies that they shouldn't be feeding, it's fine. The country can also have spending towards its own local government defense tech agencies. So not necessary does the money have to flow outwards.

What makes aggression really easy is when only certain segments of the population serve in the military, so only they are at risk. When your entire population knows a soldier that could die, war actually becomes quite difficult.

I don't get this...?

In my opinion I think that people shouldn't be forced to serve in the military just because I think that it's an unnecessary policy to have. Certainly the militaries of quite a few countries are large enough without conscripting the whole population for five years when they reach a certain age or something.
I also think that even though there are many other jobs apart from front line troops, some people will end up unwillingly going into combat and although there are no where near as many deaths in wars now since ww1 + ww2 due to smart weapons and defence systems inevitably some serving soldiers may fall victim to war (whether it be an injury that unfortunately impacts the person's life, a mental disorder most commonly post traumatic stress disorder or worst of all death) and this would be the most tragic thing of all as these victims did not even want to go in the first place.
I would also like to add that I am not against the military in fact I support the military and know many people who want to sign up or are already a part of the forces. I just think that for people who don't want to join they shouldn't have to in order to unnecessarily boost military numbers.

I agree that mandatory military service shouldn't be a thing, but only when it's feasible. There are quite a few countries that will still need mandatory military service no matter what until the need no longer persists, but is unlikely. It's not an unnecessary policy, but it is one that is of the last resort. There's wayyyyyy more job scopes than 'front line troops' or what is known as infantry. I don't really know the percentages, but such a sweeping statement is just way off. War is a sad and tragic thing, but I don't know how many of the countries with mandatory military service are at war though. I know there are deaths even in mandatory military service outside of wars etc, but it doesn't make it any less necessary nor a reason to not have it when it's needed. If the country deems that its defense force isn't big enough and requires more conscripts, then whether people like it or not, they have to do it. If it's a healthy amount, I don't think they want to conscript people for no good reason since there's so many downsides unless their government is wonky or something.

Fuck the military and fuck making it compulsory. Sure, let's force everyone to spend a pivotal period of their lives perpetuating a violent nationalistic ideology instead of pursuing their passions and dreams and trying to make the world better in their own way.

My perspective on the military (not even mandatory service, any form of military involvement) is that it's morally repugnant and I would oppose it except where some other nation were intent on attacking you (and even then I'd only go along with it if I felt the attacking nation was in some way worse to live than the current one, but this is true for almost every nation in the world so w/e). This stems from what I said before- it's both violent and nationalistic, two things I think are morally abhorrent. Violence is obvious- the military trains you to kill people, and there's no room to ask whether you're morally justified in taking a life. Even if you don't actually have to kill anyone in your period of military service, you're still facilitating such actions. Then there's the fact that your actions are in service of whatever the government deems to be in the national interest. This in no way provides moral justification, and it may ultimately mean that a given military action overall makes life worse for most people. Often your own nation's interests will come at the expense of people elsewhere, and when you're participating in something that is inherently violent this is exacerbated.

Regarding other stuff:

What. Even in western media we routinely see groups being reduced to some sort of general threat. In my own country, refugees are demonised to gain political leverage, as they are characterised as the threat of "boat people", being potential terrorists, criminals and "illegals". The same effect can be seen any time the media discusses the "threat of terror", which then gets used to justify governments taking certain measures because of an exaggerated threat to the nationDo you really think that only non-western countries are guilty of this? Why? At the very least would you not say it instils a patriotic ideology?The fact that we have no choice in supporting it to some extent doesn't undermine an anti-militaristic perspective. This isn't binary, there's a big difference between being forced to pay taxes and therefore help fund the military and actually devoting your time and labour to the militaryI feel like you missed the point of what he was saying. If people are trained to fight, then ability to harm others increases similarly to capacity for self-defense.

Except that there are always external threats where people are idiots and will threaten you if you don't have a proper defense force. In a perfect world, yea let's do away with military as a whole, but we aren't in a perfect world. Having other countries potentially attacking you isn't the only threat to necessitate having a military. There's still always the annoying threat of terrorism and having a military no matter what country is still good for deterrence and actual defense. There's areas where the military simply covers better than your internal security. There is application to having some form of military, no matter what country you are. Not going to talk about the moral part here cos it's just a bottomless pit thing haha. But a simple question would be, if someone is threatening to kill your family, and you have the option to eliminate the threat first by deadly force which is the only option in that scenario, would you do it? The analogy might be kinda off but ya.

Could always go the Heinlein route where if you don't serve a minimum, you aren't considered a citizen and don't get to vote...

Depends on how much the country is willing to compromise. If they a similar route but they can't reach a sufficient size for defense force, it's not going to work. A balancing act I guess. So what might work for one country might not work for another.

Been through 2 year compulsory military service, won't argue whether it is slavery or not. Of course it drains 2 years of my life but I live in a very small country with 2 shitty neighbours so I guess military is a form of great deterrence. (seriously, Malaysia and Indonesia have retarded politicians). But I did have fun in the 2 years and grew much fitter.

Hello fellow SG dude. Lol screw the konfrantaski thing. Harsh truths a good portion of the population simply forgets. Sadly I don't think I grew much fitter but that's just me being dumb xd slightly fitter I guess?? haha.

I don't like compulsory military service and I believe the current system of professional armed forces is the right way to go.

I mean, if someone wants to serve (maybe "work" is a better word) in the military because you believe it's right, because of natural talent, or just because you can't find a better job, then let him/her do that.

I am young enough that I didn't have to undergo compulsory military service, and I met a lot of older people who told me that military service helps to build character, makes you more mature and stuff like that. I don't really believe that though. I don't really but into the "camaraderie" thing either. Or the "serve your country" thing. Or the patriotism thing. I think they're quite outdated concepts.

The funny thing is that I have a father who served in the armed forces for 37 years. Yet he never tried to imbue me with patriotic ideas, and he was less strict of a dad than many others I know who had "civilian" jobs.

No one likes compulsory military service. But having a professional armed force isn't viable for every single country.

---

So back to OP, as to whether there should and shouldn't be mandatory military service, or however he worded that question idk. Well, there isn't a should or shouldn't. It's a need or need not that varies for different countries. In general, what does it aim to do? Maintain a sustainable and sufficient defense force for it to work. Every country needs some form of defense, whether or not they are in direct threat. Sad for those country who are :( If the country can maintain a sufficient defense without conscripts, then go ahead without it. Unless the government is full of vegetables and making bad decisions lol. Each country has different needs, and conscription is a very harsh resort. Simply put, if you have to, you have to.

Hope I added to the discussion lols. I'm still rather confused by the general direction of the thread so >_> But ye I'm up for discussion if anyone wants to ask related stuff

 

[Yoshi King]

Aye it seems that I have been summoned to this thread. For context, I just recently finished my ~2 year mandatory national service. I'll try to discuss about w/e I guess and get on to OP. I'm just gonna assume we're solely discussing mandatory military service.

Do you mind letting us know which country you're from, sandshrewz? As a Canadian whose best friend is Korean, I base a lot of my opinions on my nation's (somewhat muddy at the moment) peacekeeping stance, but I'm also informed by the reality of South Korean conscription.

Mandatory military service is a need basis thing. Having it doesn't mean that the government will have to spend more on defense, and neither does it go the other way round. If you don't have military service, but your country still needs defenses (I mean of course it does), and your current defense force isn't sufficient, then the country probably has to spend even more on mercenaries etc to fortify their defense.

This is where I was coming from as a Canadian, knowing that we aren't in dire need of it. I firmly believe that we should limit military spending as much as possible, and focus our efforts on training foreign troops where needed (like we're shifting to in the war against ISIL). As far as I know we recently dropped a plan to buy some fighter jets, but I don't think we need to spend more on fortifying ourselves.

I'd like to take a moment here to clarify that I know a lot of people think we just sit on our asses and let the U.S. do the hefty military spending. That is something I'm still trying to come to terms with, regarding the extent of it and how much it clouds my judgement regarding our own military spending. I'm well aware it becomes much easier for me to be vehemently opposed to military spending when the country that does the vast majority of it-- which happens to be our ally-- is our neighbour. Still, I believe that military spending can and should be reduced, everywhere.

Yea definitely it sets back men. That's a given downside. But in countries with a need for it, the upsides surpass the cons. Regarding corporations, as long as your country doesn't mindless or poorly spend money and feed companies that they shouldn't be feeding, it's fine. The country can also have spending towards its own local government defense tech agencies. So not necessary does the money have to flow outwards.

I think this is where my point about the US comes in. The situation is specifically not fine and so many arms corps are being given billions to develop shit that the world shouldn't need. I'm also concerned but incredibly ignorant of the facts surrounding ISIL's weapons and where they come from, perhaps someone could shed more light on that. I'm under the impression that eventually, somewhere/somehow, this technology is being stolen, bought, or otherwise put into the wrong hands, and it's scary stuff.

Except that there are always external threats where people are idiots and will threaten you if you don't have a proper defense force. In a perfect world, yea let's do away with military as a whole, but we aren't in a perfect world. Having other countries potentially attacking you isn't the only threat to necessitate having a military. There's still always the annoying threat of terrorism and having a military no matter what country is still good for deterrence and actual defense. There's areas where the military simply covers better than your internal security. There is application to having some form of military, no matter what country you are. Not going to talk about the moral part here cos it's just a bottomless pit thing haha. But a simple question would be, if someone is threatening to kill your family, and you have the option to eliminate the threat first by deadly force which is the only option in that scenario, would you do it? The analogy might be kinda off but ya.

This is where my position as a Canadian in relation to the U.S. is most poignant, I think. I understand your analogy and I'm redpilled on how shitty the world is and will forever continue to be, which necessitates some form of military. However, I think it's always best suited to leave it as a choice to the citizenry, even in the case of South Korea. The North will always be a petulant child with its own missile tests, but South Korea has so many allies that any sort of provocative attack will result in the North's annihilation.

 

[sandshrewz]

Yoshi King

From Singapore, one of the more peaceful countries with conscription I guess you could say haha.

I'm not well informed on Canada, but just recently there was a video on nukes. Which I suppose is point at USA lol. I do agree that there are places where defense expenditure can be cut down on. But that's their government being inefficient sadly. And yes US is probably feeding too much money to the wrong places and who knows what bad might come out of those money.

By choice of citizenry, what do you mean though? Whether or not to serve or whether or not to resort to violent means? Other than N's annihilation, I guess they also have to prevent a mutually assured destruction without relying on external intervention. Historically intervention hasn't been well most of the time. I'm not too sure if the South would want to just destroy North, since separated families, redundant casualties etc. But if they have to, I guess they will. *sigh*

 

[Yilx]

i hate it and it's a waste of time but i'd be damned if it wasnt literally "the best worst 2 years of my life". like my 2IC put it one time, it's less about muh military and muh army, its more of a test of how much bullshit can you take for the time you are in there.

tl;dr: i fucking hate that it's compulsory but i feel that its a necessary evil to kick some form of humility into the egoistical overlords that are today's children.

 

[tehy]

a few things

Sandshrewz, defense is definitely the main reason to have a military force and it's probably not worth the actual money otherwise, but I do feel that community matters too. I look around at this country and see so many people who could stand to mix with others who don't look, think, or believe like they do. I feel like having this happen would really benefit the U.S., even if military isn't quite the way to go. My main issue with a civil service type system is that it might not require enough hardship and necessity for people to deal with hardship and bond and get over various kinds of bullshit.

Ortheore, it's not that militaries can't do that, they often do and it's an effective tactic, but it is by no means a prerequisite. It may happen if you are actively being attacked, mind you, but that's another story entirely heh.

 

[River Martini]

Besides, military provides stability to the country which again is important to attract investors to come in, etc. So in a way having a strong defence drives economic growth. Additionally, people can talk about how much opportunity cost in terms of government budget is poured into defence, but the truth is that if your country is vulnerable and have nonsensical neighbours, you likely need a good military force. In any case, I am talking in Singapore 's context, not too sure about countries.

South Korea probably needs a stable army, given that her neighbour threatens her once every other day.

 

[Blazade]

a few things

Sandshrewz, defense is definitely the main reason to have a military force and it's probably not worth the actual money otherwise, but I do feel that community matters too. I look around at this country and see so many people who could stand to mix with others who don't look, think, or believe like they do. I feel like having this happen would really benefit the U.S., even if military isn't quite the way to go. My main issue with a civil service type system is that it might not require enough hardship and necessity for people to deal with hardship and bond and get over various kinds of bullshit.

Ortheore, it's not that militaries can't do that, they often do and it's an effective tactic, but it is by no means a prerequisite. It may happen if you are actively being attacked, mind you, but that's another story entirely heh.

Why would forcing everyone to look and think the same and share similar experiences solve the fundamental problem of people not reaching out and accepting people with differences?

You want people to deal with hardship so they can bond? Seems like a bond that works in spite of differences, not real acceptance. Like I don't think I should have to go to war just so other people can treat me like one of them.

But whatever this is bordering on offtopic, basically everything sandshrewz said was on point so thanks for that.

 

[tehy]

Why would forcing everyone to look and think the same and share similar experiences solve the fundamental problem of people not reaching out and accepting people with differences?

It would at least expose them to different people, though. That's one of the problems that creates non-accepted fundamental differences.

 

[Martin]

I'm not exactly the most qualified person to talk about the subject matter (the way that I write this post will probably be a dead givaway of that), but I don't like the idea of compulsory millitary service personally. Especially when going into the army to partake in roles which put you out in the field (and concequentially increase the risk of death), the issue I have with it is that people should have the right to choose whether they want to dedicate, say, five years of their life to a service like the army. If you want to join for the sense of community or to give you an excuse to work out or just because you are patriotic or want to protect something dear to you or whatever, then I think that you should have every right to join the army, the navy or the air force of your country. However, if people don't want to join the army (for whatever reason it may be), they shouldn't be forced to unless their defense situation is dire. The concept of conscription just doesn't sit well with me at all.