Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Good luck with a wartime conscription in the US. If you don't draft woman, it's sexist, if you do you're sending our daughters to go die. And good luck trying to recruit anyone out of the ghetto.

To all the people here saying they don't want to be forced into the army and be told to kill someone they don't want to kill - again, in the Bundeswehr they don't force you to kill ANYONE. You get your basic grunt training, then you are trained for some kind of military job, everything from sniper to bureaucrat. However, you stay in your homeland, unless you volunteer and deliberately want to go to Afghanistan.

Conscription in the way that you train 18-year-olds for 12 weeks and then send them to the middle east to get shot up by terrorists...Germany doesn't do that and I guess NO other (western) country using or thinking about conscription does/would do that. So, the "I don't want be forced to kill" argument is not really applicable here - especially if there's a civilian service alternative. A good friend of mine did some service in forest restoration, he loved it! Two other friends worked in a home for the disabled, they had tons of fun there and still work there part-time after they finished their service! They met new people and have tons of story to tell.

Just saying, conscription does NOT automatically mean you get beaten into a gun-wielding shape and then sent off to Afghanistan as cannon-fodder. Not today, not anymore.

Witzkatz wrote:To all the people here saying they don't want to be forced into the army and be told to kill someone they don't want to kill - again, in the Bundeswehr they don't force you to kill ANYONE. You get your basic grunt training, then you are trained for some kind of military job, everything from sniper to bureaucrat. However, you stay in your homeland, unless you volunteer and deliberately want to go to Afghanistan.

Conscription in the way that you train 18-year-olds for 12 weeks and then send them to the middle east to get shot up by terrorists...Germany doesn't do that and I guess NO other (western) country using or thinking about conscription does/would do that. So, the "I don't want be forced to kill" argument is not really applicable here - especially if there's a civilian service alternative. A good friend of mine did some service in forest restoration, he loved it! Two other friends worked in a home for the disabled, they had tons of fun there and still work there part-time after they finished their service! They met new people and have tons of story to tell.

Just saying, conscription does NOT automatically mean you get beaten into a gun-wielding shape and then sent off to Afghanistan as cannon-fodder. Not today, not anymore.

You are aware that certain people have an objection to serving in any branch of the military? These people feel strongly that to serve in any capacity lends credence and tacit support to militaristic actions that they might not agree with. They used to be called 'conscientious objectors' , certainly in WWI anyway.

Any form of National Service would need to take this into account and provide avenues and opportunities for those who don't wish to serve in the military.

filbert wrote:Any form of National Service would need to take this into account and provide avenues and opportunities for those who don't wish to serve in the military.

Hopefully in the same way that my vegetarian option is to eat the mean or go hungry

[/not serious]

You are aware that certain people have an objection to serving in any branch of the military? These people feel strongly that to serve in any capacity lends credence and tacit support to militaristic actions that they might not agree with. They used to be called 'conscientious objectors' , certainly in WWI anyway.

Any form of National Service would need to take this into account and provide avenues and opportunities for those who don't wish to serve in the military.

Aye, I know what you mean. Actually, being a conscientious objector is the only way of getting from military to civilian service in Germany. Thirty years ago, it was frickin' hard to be accepted as a conscientious objector, because you got asked trick questions all the time. Example:

Officer: "You are in the woods with your girlfriend and you have a gun. Some evil russians (main enemy back then) jump out of the bushes, drag your girlfriend away and start raping her! What would you do?"

Wrong answer 1: "Uh, I'd shoot the bad guys." - "Well, not so much of a conscientious objector, are you? Welcome to the army!"
Wrong answer 2: "Uh, I'd try to shoot them, but only in the leg, so they don't die, cuz I hate killing." - "Ha! Good thinking. Any wounded enemy binds two other soldiers to carry him. Good tactical thinking, you can become a NCO, or even Officer! Welcome to the army!"
Wrong answer 3: "Uh...I hate guns and killing, so I'd try to drag them away and punch them." - "Ooh, close combat! You are top-notch material for our commando forces, then! Welcome to the army!"

ONLY right answer: "Uh, I would save my girlfriend by shooting the bad guys, but I couldn't live with what I've done and shoot myself afterwards." (Well, some variations possible, but killing yourself generally was the necessary answer to get accepted as a conscientious objector.)

This has changed nowadays. You just need a written letter, a page or so, stating your concerns and an "official" sentence in it marking you as a conscientious objector.

Finally, I would like to point out that being in favour of conscription is directly linked to a civilian service alternative like in GER for me. There can be no positive outcome if you try and put people into the army that would like ANYTHING better than that, I agree on that.

Witzkatz wrote:To all the people here saying they don't want to be forced into the army and be told to kill someone they don't want to kill - again, in the Bundeswehr they don't force you to kill ANYONE. You get your basic grunt training, then you are trained for some kind of military job, everything from sniper to bureaucrat. However, you stay in your homeland, unless you volunteer and deliberately want to go to Afghanistan.

Then what's the point, It all seems a bit 'big government' and expensive to me. Where's the benefit for the rest of the population.

TBH school and parents ought to be civilising young people before they get to the age to do National Service.

I think that slave labor is wrong, even if it's for a limited term and you claim that it's good for the slave, that alone pretty much settles the issue of 'national service' and the like for me.

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH school and parents ought to be civilising young people before they get to the age to do National Service.

Having 4 of my near family being teachers (wife, parents and one grandparent (now retired)), I think more of the emphasis should be placed on the parents... you can only do so much in schools if it is not supported at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I think that slave labor is wrong, even if it's for a limited term and you claim that it's good for the slave, that alone pretty much settles the issue of 'national service' and the like for me.

If you think about it any form of contract is essentially slavery. For £X, I will work Y hours a week for Z months and I will follow whatever rules are placed upon me or face the consequences. Any form of service in the armed forces is even closer to slavery, as you are often placing your life in their hands for extended periods of time (both literally and metaphorically).

Would rather not strong-arm people into having to go into some military service of any kind, if they don't want to.

For that conscientious objector question someone put forward a bit earlier, I'd just have the most fierce want to knock the everloving gak out of the person asking that question.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH school and parents ought to be civilising young people before they get to the age to do National Service.

Having 4 of my near family being teachers (wife, parents and one grandparent (now retired)), I think more of the emphasis should be placed on the parents... you can only do so much in schools if it is not supported at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I think that slave labor is wrong, even if it's for a limited term and you claim that it's good for the slave, that alone pretty much settles the issue of 'national service' and the like for me.

If you think about it any form of contract is essentially slavery. For £X, I will work Y hours a week for Z months and I will follow whatever rules are placed upon me or face the consequences. Any form of service in the armed forces is even closer to slavery, as you are often placing your life in their hands for extended periods of time (both literally and metaphorically).

A contract isn't slavery, because it is entered into voluntarily, it can be renegotiated, rendered void by circumstances, or just broken upon peril of merely civil penalties.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH school and parents ought to be civilising young people before they get to the age to do National Service.

Having 4 of my near family being teachers (wife, parents and one grandparent (now retired)), I think more of the emphasis should be placed on the parents... you can only do so much in schools if it is not supported at home.

Yes, the Parents are most important, and the schools are important too.

George Spiggott wrote:
Then what's the point, It all seems a bit 'big government' and expensive to me. Where's the benefit for the rest of the population.

You free up time for the professional soldiers to do more useful stuff than hanging around the barracks and polishing stuff.

@Bearers of Salvation:
Comparing (modern) conscription to slavery seems a bit harsh to me. But that might just be a difference between Germany and America - we have our social health care system that also gives you treatment if you don't have any money, quite extensive care systems for the unemployed, stuff like that. Many Germans I know, me included, think, that when the government provides all this support for you, you can devote 9 months of your life to do something for the government, too. And you get paid quite a nice amount for an 18-year-old, they make sure you have a place to live while doing service and so on. America on the other side is much more about personal freedom and "I want to do what I want" and less governmental influence throughout everyday life as far as I can see it. I can understand that from the "freedom"-viewpoint conscription might look a bit like slavery, but again, I think this comparison is too harsh.

Kilkrazy wrote:A contract isn't slavery, because it is entered into voluntarily, it can be renegotiated, rendered void by circumstances, or just broken upon peril of merely civil penalties.

I would agree to an extent, however "slavery" (in the more traditional usage of the term) can be subject to all those things as well. The only difference is that one was voluntary, and one is not. Indentured service could arguably be considered slavery, yet is far closer to the more recognised work contract we have today than slavery proper.

However, I've just realised this is mildly off topic... back to the barracks with us!

Back to this interesting side issue.

If, by the traditional usage of slavery, you mean the ancient Judaic version as used in the Bible, I agree, though it should be noted that the Judaic slave still retained a number of rights.

A slave in the more modern sense, used from ancient Greek times to the mid-19th century USA, had no rights.

In the modern day, slaves do have human rights, to the extent that they cannot by their rights be a slave, and it is a crime in all countries (though some countries abuse this).

The origin of indentured service was the written contract between an English nobleman and his retained soldiers in the Hundred Years War period. The "indents" were produced by cutting or tearing the contract across, so that each partner could take half and check if they matched.

Modern indentured labour has a different meaning, much closer to slavery, and is also illegal in most if not all countries.

If you join the army you lose certain legal rights (this is being argued about in the British courts at the moment) and this would presumably apply to conscripts too, so in a sense it would be like a form of slavery, though clearly not nearly as bad as real slavery.

The problem with rights I feel is one of "how far is too far?". How many rights can one loose (or have restricted) before you essentially end up being compromised. Clearly some rights are seen as more "essential" than others (going back to the 2nd world war, certain rights of freedom of the press, speech, movement, etc were suspended or heavily curtailed - not to mention the draft for men of a certain age range and fitness, though I was meaning more for those left in civilian life).

Japanese descended Americans lost their freedom entirely amid fears they were working for the enemy (with or without proof) - and this being in the land of the free and the brave, where we have seen people go out of their way to protect their liberty and rights.

Today, criminals loose certain of their rights as punishment, soldiers sign away some of their rights when they take up the uniform and we are discussing drafting all (or at least most) people of a certain age into either military style national service, or a more civilian style national service (the choice being their own) in which they may or may not loose certain of their rights.

I view a system whereby national service is an extension of school - after their final exams, they enter into basic training and are then assigned/choose their career paths for their national service as a system where the individual rights of the person are minimally infringed and the benefits to the individual outweigh the giving of a year (or whatever period they serve) to the nation.

Apparently if you sound overly keen, the army wont want to conscript you.

"I like to shoot things cos of the p'ting sound it makes..."

"Erm....yus, well... *runs away*"

Witzkatz wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:
Then what's the point, It all seems a bit 'big government' and expensive to me. Where's the benefit for the rest of the population.

You free up time for the professional soldiers to do more useful stuff than hanging around the barracks and polishing stuff.

Why didn't you say that in the first place? Sign me up. No, not really, I could think of better uses for the millions of pounds it would cost.

Why am I arguing for small government in a mattyrm thread?

If I got drafted id want to be sniper and take someones head off their shoulders with a Barret and watch it all through my scope.....watch the fountain of blood from the neck and the explosion of brain matter and skull and scalp.

Failing that I'd want fly an Apache and attack unseen (like a sniper but with more dakka).

Fateweaver wrote:If I got drafted id want to be sniper and take someones head off their shoulders with a Barret and watch it all through my scope.....watch the fountain of blood from the neck and the explosion of brain matter and skull and scalp.

Failing that I'd want fly an Apache and attack unseen (like a sniper but with more dakka).

I think you've confused 'drafted' with 'play the new computer game'. Although with the current trend towards drone aircraft maybe you haven't.

If they draft people my age we're probably in very deep gak. Plus I'm gak at counterstrike, you never know where my bomb may land if I'm behind the drone.

Unless a nation already has mandatory service it'll probably take at least a major war to possibly change its mindset.

However I like such a system on paper as long as combat troops are still made up of volunteers (lots of logistics and non-combat troops are involved in one way or another for military operations) and if there's an option for doing some kind of civil/community service instead. FWIW Military forces often are involved in humanitarian efforts and building infrastructure in addition to serving in combat zones overseas. A soldier's first few years of service have pretty underwhelming salaries when it comes to the vague economics of it all.

It'll build teamwork and communication skills to another level that'll trickle down to the rest of society. The newer generations also seem to be declining in these areas even though the "real world" requires them. Also it'd give its citizens somewhat of a common bond they can share and likely a much deeper appreciation for peace and the sacrifices involved to keep it.

If there must be mandatory service, then I think Israel has an excellent system that should be emulated. The majority of Israelis that I've met, granted they selected themselves for foreign travel, were great people.

That used to be the case, but no longer from what I've read. Israeli leadership has gone on record stating that the national guard who fought in their 1973 war performed poorly. The draft only remains for cultural reasons, and its a regular occurence and not a big deal for reservists to be awol for drills. Their current system of mandatory service is more a drain on their nation then a boon, as it was intended.

They've bought enough advanced weaponry to supplement their regular army that they no longer plan on relying so heavily on national guard. Unless relations with Turkey somehow go to hell in a handbasket and devolve into war, their regular army is head and shoulders above their regional rivals, and they will always seem to have the best relations with the sole superpower in the world.

Preface : TLDR version, draft as we know it (Vietnam) wouldn't function, but a draft based on economic stimulation would be more helpful.

As far as reinstating the draft in the US, I don't think the model used in Vietnam era would work. I'm more in favor of draftees being put into military service in 100% non deployable, non combat roles (they do exist) or community service, the draftees choice, for three years. Or also have the choice to have a percentage of their income taxed for a similar period unless they are in college or trade school for jobs that are actually in demand in the US. Offer tuition assistance and bonuses to those who complete their degree. The tax percentage would vary per income, so as not to adversely effect the poor. This tax would make sure everyone from Bill Gates to the young adult working his first job at the grocery store would have a vested interest in our nations politics and foreign policy, as well as direct students to much needed professions.

As a former Active duty Army soldier, I'm not in favor of draftees being put into combat roles. Not even volunteers want to be in combat(they might say they do beforehand, but talk to a combat veteran and he'll sing a different toon). If draftees in the Vietnam War(who accounted for 30% of the casualties) had not been placed into combat roles, I believe that war would've been won, as the draft and draftee casualties were a major point of division and political contention in America at that time.

Anyone in favor of draftees being put into service to supplement direct combat units need only look at the stark contrast at personell and material losses of Russia's ill fated military excursion into Afghanistan and compare that to the U.S., Britian and NATOs ongoing, almost 10 year war. Russia's mostly conscripted force averaged more casualties per month then coalition forces have suffered for the entire duration, for almost the same amount of warfighting.

Witzkatz wrote:But that might just be a difference between Germany and America - we have our social health care system that also gives you treatment if you don't have any money, quite extensive care systems for the unemployed, stuff like that. Many Germans I know, me included, think, that when the government provides all this support for you, you can devote 9 months of your life to do something for the government, too.

Isn't that what taxes are for anyway? Once you break down the percent of my money that goes to the government, I've devoted way more than 9 months of my life to 'doing something' for the government, and I've got a lot less to show for it. I know some people like the that they can take a bunch 'damn kids' and force them to conform to a certain look, practice blind obedience to nonsensical orders, and put their lives at risk on a whim, but I don't see the connection between that and social services.

I also don't buy the 'oh this draft won't be for the real military' bit - the US draft has never actually worked like that, even though there were court cases that pretty much said it had to. If there wasn't a recession to up military recruitment, I'm quite certain some of the draftees would end up in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or some other hellhole in a 'noncombat role' getting shot at and killed. You may trust that the government is always good and kind and never does anything bad, but I most certainly don't.

And the whole thing gets to be a real mess when you start taking military recruitment rules like 'dont ask dont tell', or 'no psychological drugs at all' and trying to fit them into the draft. In the 60s, being gay was a big deal, admitting to it could basically end life as you know it, but now it's not really a big deal. If the choice is between 'kiss a guy in front of the draft board' and 'get stuck in the desert/jungle hoping insurgents/VC don't kill you', an awful lot of straight guys are going to have their tongues in each others mouths.

I can understand that from the "freedom"-viewpoint conscription might look a bit like slavery, but again, I think this comparison is too harsh.

If it's a harsh comparison, explain the differences so we can see exactly what's unfair - you haven't said why you think it's harsh for me to compare forcing people to work for you at gunpoint with slavery. It doesn't just look 'a bit like' slavery, it is exactly involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is justified when the choice is that or conquest; the original militia in America, or various european conscription systems were needed to be able to field enough of an army for the country to continue to exist as an independent political unit. But no one is trying to argue that this is in some way needed for the US or Germany to survive in this day and age, so there is no 'neccessary evil' justification.

To make it worse, people are saying that the involuntary servitude is 'for your own good', which is just offensive to me, and I'd think Germans would be a little more skeptical of the whole 'work makes you free' vibe in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:I view a system whereby national service is an extension of school - after their final exams, they enter into basic training and are then assigned/choose their career paths for their national service as a system where the individual rights of the person are minimally infringed and the benefits to the individual outweigh the giving of a year (or whatever period they serve) to the nation.

I don't regard forcing people to serve your whims at gunpoint to be a minimal infringement on individual rights, in any way shape or form. I'm sure lots of people enjoy the idea of being able to force every one of the 'damn kids' to go through "when I say jump, you say 'how high'" training, but that doesn't change it from involuntary servitude. If it's really such a great thing, you wouldn't need to force people to do it. And like I said before, trying to force people into basic training is going to get really troublesome when you factor in the fact that kissing another guy or getting a perscription for an antidepressant disqualifies you from going in in the first place.

Idea. Just make it seem like you are really eager to kill <enemy of the week> here and make yourself sound really racist about it.

Either they accept you, you go to the Daily Mail and make a fortune, or they kindly refuse.

There's no denying it’d be better if our citizens were more active and had greater personal responsbility. Mind you, I think it would be better for everyone if we were better read and more knowledgeable in the arts.

Thing is, I don't think we're going to improve our knowledge by sticking people in crummy share flats fir a year with the complete works of Proust. I’m similarly sceptical that sticking them in the army will make them into more responsible, more active citizens.

That said, I don’t particularly oppose the idea of national service… spending six months or a year doing one of a range of options that produces a benefit for the country and gets people used to hard work. It could be in the military, it could be cleaning bedpands or building highways.

We already kind of have this here in Australia, with our work for the dole programs. Once you’ve been on the dole a month or two you get told if you want to keep getting your benefits you have to start doing some work in government programs. Generally it’s make work like picking up leaves in parks and the like, but I know a few people for whom the program has served as a real wake up call.

But it isn’t as though the only people who could benefit from something like that are unemployed. I could see a decently designed scheme benefiting a lot of people.

mattyrm wrote:And thats not to mention all the exercise. And look at the figures, most nations with national service have far lower rates of obesity, heart troubles, diabetes etc.. and also less mental heath issues.

It’s a big stretch to claim that the correlation in any way relates to causation. To establish that you’d have to look at soldiers in contrast to the general population, and while I’ll grant you it is likely that soldiers returning to private lives tend to be fitter, I’d have a hard time believing they tend to be more mentally stable. Soldiers do tend to kill themselves, a bit.

mattyrm wrote:The run of the line American Army infantry soldiers i served with were pretty poor in the main, and the National Guard are beyond terrible.

Don’t you think that’d be the natural result of recruiting a larger portion of the general population? In countries like the UK and Australia we have far fewer troops per head of population, and so can be more selective in who we take into our armed forces.

Now, if a draft was initiated you wouldn’t be able to take only the best applicants. Think about the guy or girl who last took your grocery money? Do you really want that person plotting an artillery strike that’ll be going over your head?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't regard forcing people to serve your whims at gunpoint to be a minimal infringement on individual rights, in any way shape or form. I'm sure lots of people enjoy the idea of being able to force every one of the 'damn kids' to go through "when I say jump, you say 'how high'" training, but that doesn't change it from involuntary servitude. If it's really such a great thing, you wouldn't need to force people to do it. And like I said before, trying to force people into basic training is going to get really troublesome when you factor in the fact that kissing another guy or getting a perscription for an antidepressant disqualifies you from going in in the first place.

I must have missed the point where I said I was going to go round all the schools and force people onto buses at gunpoint to drive them off to "camps" where angry people would point guns in their faces and laugh cruely as they wet themselves.

I also missed the part where I stated that they would be given guns and told to march in front of the real soldiers to act as a spotty human shield...

Oh, wait, I didn't say any of those things. In fact, I categorically said that people undergoing national service would not serve in combat roles, would be given the choice of either a more civilian or military service after undergoing certain basic training and national service would be more akin to an extension of the education system.

What I, and other advocates of national service in this thread, have been saying is that national service is not geared towards producing soldiers or cannon fodder - it is geared towards producing responsible human beings who will be of value to society and themselves. The discussion regards rights lost vs what is gained during and after service is one that everyone will have a different view on: Just how many rights can be lost or reduced before you loose too many? Is it right to loose any? Etc...

+1 to what SilverMK2 said.

SilverMK2 wrote:

What I, and other advocates of national service in this thread, have been saying is that national service is not geared towards producing soldiers or cannon fodder - it is geared towards producing responsible human beings who will be of value to society and themselves.

It seems to me that this is what the whole of parenting and school are meant to have done by the time someone gets to the age of 18.

So, Silver, what do you do to people who Refuse? Lock them up? Because everyone knows our Prisons are just lying empty as it is!

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that this is what the whole of parenting and school are meant to have done by the time someone gets to the age of 18.

That is certainly what one would have hoped. However, national service also lets people leaving school get a taste of the wider world; with tours taking them potentially all over the nation (if not the world), allowing them to serve with people they would perhaps not normally associate with, and equipping them with skills knowledge that they may not get even with the best upbringing via home and school.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:So, Silver, what do you do to people who Refuse? Lock them up? Because everyone knows our Prisons are just lying empty as it is!

I'm not trying to present the whole program in a couple of posts

I personally have no idea. I imagine that some arrangement can be reached. One would look to nations which currently have national service to see how they deal with the situation.

An American soldier in my psychology class brought up an interesting aspect yesterday: National service could help decrease racism and prejudices, because people of all social and ethnical groups are forced to work together, live together and be dependent on each other. Food for thought, I think.

About people refusing service: Refusing to attend service counts as desertion in Germany. This means a military police commando will drive to your house and, if they find you there, will drag you to your barracks, where an officer will probably be a bit angry with you. If you try to evade this by fleeing from your house or even the country, you will be given some time in prison - around 4 months - for your crime.

This is how it officially works in Germany. As imperial-guard-ish as it might sound, I don't think this actually happens that often. People not wanting to do service generally get around it by tampering with their fitness evaluation and urine tests in some way or just act like total lunatics during the evaluation. There also have been cases where people attended the service, but then, being there, refused to do anything. While theoretically refusal to obey orders, I heard that the officer in command in one case simply said "Feth it, this isn't useful for anybody, just let him be." As I said before, there are webpages over webpages how you can trick your way around service if you really want.