Is Mandatory Government and Military service that bad?

[Avaerilon]

Forcing people- men especially- to perform services they might not want to do or be any good at? No, backwards idea. Besides, professional volunteer armies tend to be better in terms of individual soldiers' talents and motivation. Given the terrible weapons we now possess, being able to draft in more people once the smoke clears is hardly going to make a difference.

[Rosmana]

It is when you are Dutch.

I am NOT swearing an oath to that, well, fill the in rest yourself. ("King" Willem-Alexander)

But yes, it is bad.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I mean. South korea is makin it work ;)

It works... for whom, exactly?

If I flew in to Seoul tomorrow and offered people $250 a month to do backbreaking physical labour and stay on-call 24/7, literally nobody would take up that offer and I’d probably be arrested for labour law violations, and rightfully so.

But when it’s their national government doing it its somehow suddenly all hunky-dory.

Conscription is a borderline human rights violation.

[Stellar Colonies]

yes

[Page]

Any form of forced labor is unacceptable, and conscription into military service is even worse because a person may be forced to engage in violence over things that are none of their concern.

In America and the West in general, there have been no just wars for a very long time. The post-9/11 wars in the Middle East are particularly unjust and worse, they have no benefit for the people. An outright war of conquest with the goal of stealing a country's resources is morally repugnant, but America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don't even reap any gains for the people - literally trillions of dollars have been squandered. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has about the same amount of control over the country as they did before the invasion. The regime change war in Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and the power vacuum gave birth to ISIS. So let's face facts - these wars have nothing to do with anyone's freedom or safety.

If I went out on the streets and picked up litter for a half hour, I would have done more to keep my community safe than if I fought in Iraq or Afghanistan for a year, because picking up litter might prevent someone from tripping and breaking their neck, but the continuation of these wars that we can apparently still afford while not being able to afford Medicare for All or student loan debt cancelation not only hasn't helped prevent a terrorist attack, it makes one more likely because the collateral damage of civilian casualties, the instability, the devastated infrastructure, and economic ruin makes the people who live in those countries hate the country that occupies theirs, making those people far more likely to be radicalized.

But even in a just war, it is wrong to demand anyone take a life or give up their life against their will. That is a decision that belongs solely to the individual. I signed no contract with the government by being born, what right do they have to demand I put my life on the line?

[Andsed]

Conscription should only really be used when a nation is under an extreme threat. Otherwise I find forcing people into the military(even in non combat roles) to be extremely wrong.

[Cordel One]

Yes, and on a personal note I strongly sympathize with the Vietcong.

[Ethel mermania]

Former Congressman Charles Rangel supported conscription as a means to control American adventurism.

When a professional army gets deployed to Iraq, they are all volunteers, and that is the expectation that an army gets used. If it was a conscript army getting deployed, the mothers of the drafted soldiers would be up in arms about it, and congress would not be so amenable to sending American troops to war zones unnecessarily.

Note the US military wants no part of conscription.

[Adamede]

Former Congressman Charles Rangel supported conscription as a means to control American adventurism.

When a professional army gets deployed to Iraq, they are all volunteers, and that is the expectation that an army gets used. If it was a conscript army getting deployed, the mothers of the drafted soldiers would be up in arms about it, and congress would not be so amenable to sending American troops to war zones unnecessarily.

Note the US military wants no part of conscription.

Sure didn’t stop the shit show that was Vietnam.

Although we weren’t there for nearly as long as we’ve been in the sandbox.

[Ethel mermania]

Former Congressman Charles Rangel supported conscription as a means to control American adventurism.

When a professional army gets deployed to Iraq, they are all volunteers, and that is the expectation that an army gets used. If it was a conscript army getting deployed, the mothers of the drafted soldiers would be up in arms about it, and congress would not be so amenable to sending American troops to war zones unnecessarily.

Note the US military wants no part of conscription.

Sure didn’t stop the shit show that was Vietnam.

Although we weren’t there for nearly as long as we’ve been in the sandbox.

It may have ended it though, it was the pressure of the anti-war movement is what forced Nixon to the bargaining table, and his promise of "vietnamization" of the war was part of the reason he was reelected in 1972.

[Saint Yosx]

Former Congressman Charles Rangel supported conscription as a means to control American adventurism.

When a professional army gets deployed to Iraq, they are all volunteers, and that is the expectation that an army gets used. If it was a conscript army getting deployed, the mothers of the drafted soldiers would be up in arms about it, and congress would not be so amenable to sending American troops to war zones unnecessarily.

Note the US military wants no part of conscription.

I mean yeah it's kind of like a revere phycology effect, forcing people to go into battles they don't support would make people mad and protest would occur, so congressmen and politicians that want to stay in power would vote against the war. Therefore America would avoid costly and terrible wars. Imagine how people would look at the Vietnam war if there was no draft.... maybe more would have supported it?

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

I support conscription, if for no other reason than to straighten out kids and teach strict discipline and obedience

[Ethel mermania]

Former Congressman Charles Rangel supported conscription as a means to control American adventurism.

When a professional army gets deployed to Iraq, they are all volunteers, and that is the expectation that an army gets used. If it was a conscript army getting deployed, the mothers of the drafted soldiers would be up in arms about it, and congress would not be so amenable to sending American troops to war zones unnecessarily.

Note the US military wants no part of conscription.

I mean yeah it's kind of like a revere phycology effect, forcing people to go into battles they don't support would make people mad and protest would occur, so congressmen and politicians that want to stay in power would vote against the war. Therefore America would avoid costly and terrible wars. Imagine how people would look at the Vietnam war if there was no draft.... maybe more would have supported it?

In the early 60's, most Americans supported our involvement in Vietnam, its only the expansion and the nature of that environment that changed the majorities opinion.

[Rosmana]

I support conscription, if for no other reason than to straighten out kids and teach strict discipline and obedience

Ok, fair points I will admit, but not too my RL nation.

No, just no.

[Greater Victora]

I support conscription, if for no other reason than to straighten out kids and teach strict discipline and obedience

Ok, fair points I will admit, but not too my RL nation.

No, just no.

There is a difference between strict discipline and obedience and blindly following orders.

[Rosmana]

Ok, fair points I will admit, but not too my RL nation.

No, just no.

There is a difference between strict discipline and obedience and blindly following orders.

Even that, no, I am not wearing that flag, and I am not swearing loyalty to our ''king'' thank you kindly.

[Aeritai]

Yes, and on a personal note I strongly sympathize with the Vietcong.

So you don't sympathize with all the young American men who were forced to join the Vietnam War?

[Thermodolia]

I mean. South korea is makin it work

It works... for whom, exactly?

If I flew in to Seoul tomorrow and offered people $250 a month to do backbreaking physical labour and stay on-call 24/7, literally nobody would take up that offer and I’d probably be arrested for labour law violations, and rightfully so.

But when it’s their national government doing it its somehow suddenly all hunky-dory.

Conscription is a borderline human rights violation.

Conscription doesn’t mean you aren’t paid.

[Stellar Colonies]

Yes, and on a personal note I strongly sympathize with the Vietcong.

So you don't sympathize with all the young American men who were forced to join the Vietnam War?

Sympathy for the Vietcong doesn't necessarily cancel out sympathy for the men who were unjustly forced to that country.

[Autumn Wind]

I don’t see the value in quadrupling the size of the military just to babysit people who don’t want to be there.

One of the factors that make the military as professional as it is is the fact that everyone there is a volunteer-at one extent or another the overwhelming majority want to be there, and it contributes to maintaining and reinforcing morale/responsibility/professionalism. If you dumped millions of unwilling individuals who don’t care about consequences into the mix, the whole system would collapse.

[Saint Yosx]

It works... for whom, exactly?

If I flew in to Seoul tomorrow and offered people $250 a month to do backbreaking physical labour and stay on-call 24/7, literally nobody would take up that offer and I’d probably be arrested for labour law violations, and rightfully so.

But when it’s their national government doing it its somehow suddenly all hunky-dory.

Conscription is a borderline human rights violation.

Conscription doesn’t mean you aren’t paid.

Maybe I should clarify myself.... mandatory community or civil service to the government. That includes conscription, but not always on front lines! This may include sectors of the government that work with the military like medics, engineers, and farmers. Not always in combat....

[The Python]

Yes. It's forcing people to kill.

[CoraSpia]

Yes, it's forcing people to do a job they don't want to do and worst of all one which contributes to military activity.

[Penguinya]

Yes and no. Depending on the pros and cons.
pros: more soldiers if there's a war, disciplined people, you can leave if you want to
cons: some people oppose it, it can be abused by officials, etc.

[Saint Yosx]

I don’t see the value in quadrupling the size of the military just to babysit people who don’t want to be there.

One of the factors that make the military as professional as it is is the fact that everyone there is a volunteer-at one extent or another the overwhelming majority want to be there, and it contributes to maintaining and reinforcing morale/responsibility/professionalism. If you dumped millions of unwilling individuals who don’t care about consequences into the mix, the whole system would collapse.

Then again since the majority of the people in the army want to be there, it is very hard to critique the military as it's put on such a high pedestal. This means that people may have valuable ideas to improve life in the military or something akin to that, but since the military is so honored, it's politically incorrect to insult a person who served. If everyone at some point served in some way, it would humble the army from a honorable, god-like immunity from prosecution and change position to a job everybody as to do and no one is above the law sort of thing. Imagine if Jury duty was voluntary? We would put those people are pedestal as well if it was like that... but not all who do jury duty is immune from the law. That's why everybody does it.