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.

I just read an interesting article in "Monocle" magazine (a somewhat pretentious magazine my brother buys) arguing that the world needs more states with conscription, not fewer.

Im aware with my military history and conservative background people may be expecting a cliched "make em join the army or give them the birch!" speech, not unlike ones grandad might knock out, but thats not the case.

The article was in depth and followed young soldiers, both male and female, in Finland, Sweden, Spain, Austrailia and Switzerland.

It concludes that basically national service is a good thing, that a nation of able bodies is better than a land of layabouts, and that military service for a few years gives you a keen eye for a detail, a cool head, higher chance of being bilingual, a strong arm, a stomach for a fight, and a heart for winning minds.

The quote from the kid at the end summed it up for me, he said "when you join at the beginning, you think you will be only packing boxes, but now i am responsible for a helicopter, and when you are given responsibility, you become responsible"

I dont think that there are many negatives to national service. I think that nobody likes their medicine, but its good for you all the same. I didnt WANT to pick my kit out of a swamp and wash and iron and sew until 4am, but its one of the things i had to do during my first few weeks of basic, and im bloody glad i did it now... i always wondered "i joined the commandos, what the hell do i have to learn all this poncy stuff for?!" but now i can keep house better than my missus, although.. im still not much of a cook.

Most of my friends are professionals, my closest mates are a lawyer, an engineer for the national grid, a student, a bank manager, all of these guys would have benefited from a couple of years national service in my opinion. My lawyer mate is ridiculously untidy, my engineer mate still gets him mum to do his ironing, things like that i think fade after being forced to move out as a teen, and stand you in good stead for your whole life, plus, NCOs and Officers learn alot of things during that few years which will surely benefit them greatly in civilian jobs which involve managerial skills..

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.

But im biased, cos im a military man, so im here to ask the well rounded and (generally!) well educated chaps on dakka your opinions.

What are the negatives to national service? Why did it stop? Could we even feasibly reintroduce a system? And do you think it would be a good idea?

sure didnt david rotguiz(the "evey metal" that was in whitedwarf last year) do two or three years in the 90's in spain. not sure, but yes complulsery service should be there...

The state should not impose on the citizenry.

To continuously induct and train unwilling conscripts diverts money away from the professional armed forces.

Conscription was stopped because it was unpopular. There are few western countries that still have it. Germany is planning to give up in the next few years.

If conscription was introduced before, it presumably could be again, however it would take a serious external military threat to think about doing it.

Germany operates a system in which conscripts can go into military service or a form of community service. This is an interesting idea, however I don't think it satisfies the military model you seem to have in mind.

I agree, its neccessary to be responsible and learn a bit or two about dutys before claiming rights.
So conscription is/was a good thing any many benefitted from that experience.
Actually the questionable experts of 'modern warfare' support professional armies of small size.
IMO, their focus on monetary issues and their misconception of a world of friends except some terrorists won't stand the test of time.

But the worst is the loss of social training. Some egomaniacs really need to serve in their youth when it is still possible to change minds.

It's not possible today (in America at least). A book I'm reading right now about the militaries transition from the 19th century to the 20th century shows the struggles the government had in establishing a permanent standing Army. Prior to WW1 the US relied apon it's "citizen soldier". The nation wide belief that every man should be willing to step up and take up arms when the nation calls.

As Vietnam has shown us, thats no longer the situation. We've gained our "Best in the world" status on the shoulders of an all volunteer military, and it will remain that way.

Now, I understand the need for countries like Israel and South Korea to have a mandatory service like they do. They are constantly under the threat of invasion and need to have a well trained reserve that they can call up at any time.

For the US, I back a wartime conscription, IF needed. In todays world of warfare, it is probably very unlikely. The only situation I seriously see that happening is an invasion of the US, and despite whatever Modern Warfare 2 dreamed up, just will never happen. Our Navy and Air Force is simply to powerful to ever allow a significant invasion force to cross the ocean, and no offense to any Mexicans or Canadians... but you guys just don't scare us at all.


As for the idea that national service is required for all the rights inherent to that country. No thank you. While it may be ideal to make it so people work for what they are getting, that is the only thing were I'm glad American can be considered socialist. We are all equal as far as that Consitution is concerned, and I hope it will always remain so.

Sorry, rather wander around South East Asia getting laid drinking than be stuck in a bog in the middle of the night with some 30 something jerk-off yelling at me about cleaning my rifle.

Jesus died for my sins, I have no worries.

djones520 wrote:

As Vietnam has shown us, thats no longer the situation. We've gained our "Best in the world" status on the shoulders of an all volunteer military, and it will remain that way.

Best in the world, if you do say so yourself right?

Dont get me wrong, British idiots say that our armed forces are the best in the world as well, and i dont think there is such a thing. There are good units, but no nation has all the"best soldiers on the world"

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.

The Navy SEALS are good, and i think you have the best air force in the world thanks to all the flying hours (saved my ass several times so ill not have a bad word said about them!)

But not the "military" as a whole.

I dunno who id give that to.. i think practice makes perfect personally, so id probably give it to some dive country thats been at war every day for the last 30 years, or some place where they dont have "human rights" so they can beast their soldiers into machines..

Too soft us "civilised" nations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Sorry, rather wander around South East Asia getting laid drinking than be stuck in a bog in the middle of the night with some 30 something jerk-off yelling at me about cleaning my rifle.

Jesus died for my sins, I have no worries.

You have no idea about the military either clearly.

And "going around Asia getting laid drinking" doesnt give you any life skills does it?

Other than shagging of course, but you get plenty of that done in the military as well..

I think national Service would be a good thing.

Everyone I know has benefited from stints in the military and part of me wishes that I hadn't been such a mooch and a drifter and had some proper focus shouted, beaten, or marched into me.

I am also of the opinion that a form of national service may go far to giving many individuals a sense of place and community that is currently lacking here in the UK. (My view only).

mattyrm wrote:

djones520 wrote:

As Vietnam has shown us, thats no longer the situation. We've gained our "Best in the world" status on the shoulders of an all volunteer military, and it will remain that way.

Best in the world, if you do say so yourself right?

Dont get me wrong, British idiots say that our armed forces are the best in the world as well, and i dont think there is such a thing. There are good units, but no nation has all the"best soldiers on the world"

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.

The Navy SEALS are good, and i think you have the best air force in the world thanks to all the flying hours (saved my ass several times so ill not have a bad word said about them!)

But not the "military" as a whole.

I dunno who id give that to.. i think practice makes perfect personally, so id probably give it to some dive country thats been at war every day for the last 30 years, or some place where they dont have "human rights" so they can beast their soldiers into machines..

Too soft us "civilised" nations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Sorry, rather wander around South East Asia getting laid drinking than be stuck in a bog in the middle of the night with some 30 something jerk-off yelling at me about cleaning my rifle.

Jesus died for my sins, I have no worries.

You have no idea about the military either clearly.

And "going around Asia getting laid drinking" doesnt give you any life skills does it?

Other than shagging of course, but you get plenty of that done in the military as well..

It's not a question of who has the best individual fighting unit. It's a question of technology, man power, logistics, will to fight, leadership, and doctrine, COMBINED into one synergistic fighting force.

No other nation in the world has the ability to project forces like we can. No other nation in the world has the technology our military has. Few other nations in the world have the veteran experience that our forces have. Or the training that our leadership has.

Britain has a good military, there is no denying it. But it's Navy and Air Forces while powerful would not stand up to ours in a beat down drag out fight. In today's warfare, ground combat is nothing if you do not have air and sea superiourity. There is a certain sense of pride when I say the US Military is the most powerful fighting force this world has ever seen. I'm proud to be a part of it, and doing my part to make it so. But it's just plain fact honestly. People bash how much money we spend on our military, but there is a reason for it. It's to make sure we are the best.

For a good chunk of people in the UK it would have a positive effect, but there would be a small number (myself included) who simply do not gel with that type of life. I've nothing against it and have seen it work well for many people, but I spent my late teens and early twenties working like mad, setting up a company and making connections that have granted me a very comfortable life now, allowing me to give back with things like Dakka. Being told to do something by someone else instead of having that freedom to pursue my own interests would have had a significantly negative effect on my life. Conscription as a response to antisocial behaviour would be an idea I could get behind though.

djones520 wrote:It's not a question of who has the best individual fighting unit. It's a question of technology, man power, logistics, will to fight, leadership, and doctrine, COMBINED into one synergistic fighting force.

No other nation in the world has the ability to project forces like we can. No other nation in the world has the technology our military has. Few other nations in the world have the veteran experience that our forces have. Or the training that our leadership has.

Britain has a good military, there is no denying it. But it's Navy and Air Forces while powerful would not stand up to ours in a beat down drag out fight. In today's warfare, ground combat is nothing if you do not have air and sea superiourity. There is a certain sense of pride when I say the US Military is the most powerful fighting force this world has ever seen. I'm proud to be a part of it, and doing my part to make it so. But it's just plain fact honestly. People bash how much money we spend on our military, but there is a reason for it. It's to make sure we are the best.

Yeah were just misunderstanding each other then, the USA has the most powerful military in the world by a long way, and spends pretty much 50% of the entire globes military expenditure. I was just looking at "best" as most.. i dont know, techincally skillful? Kinda like Buster Douglas is stronger then Mayweather and would beat him up, but isnt half the boxer!

As i said, i wont have a bad word said about the USAF, the boys in the A-10s saved our asses numerous times, and im proud to have been a part of OIF and OEF (we had a troop of USMC attached to us and all our air support was American during the initial surge into Iraq) all i meant was that i think individual Chinese soldiers for example will probably be better "killers" as they will not have the same impositions when training their guys, i mean, have you seen the fethers march?

legoburner wrote:For a good chunk of people in the UK it would have a positive effect, but there would be a small number (myself included) who simply do not gel with that type of life. I've nothing against it and have seen it work well for many people, but I spent my late teens and early twenties working like mad, setting up a company and making connections that have granted me a very comfortable life now, allowing me to give back with things like Dakka. Being told to do something by someone else instead of having that freedom to pursue my own interests would have had a significantly negative effect on my life. Conscription as a response to antisocial behaviour would be an idea I could get behind though.

Isn't that what Borstal is meant to be for?

Do we have any stats on the effectiveness of Borstals for curing or deterring anti-social behaviour?

We would also need to know the number of anti-socials that get sent to Borstal, because no matter how effective it may or may not be on an individual basis, that won't help if only a few anti-socials get sent there.

The Armed Forces aren't supposed to be Borstal, however. Their purpose is to be a professional fighting force for the defence of the nation and enforcing our political decisions by arms if necessary.

Associating the Army with Borstal probably would reduce the number of legitimate, respectable volunteer recruits.

We don't have conscription in Sweden anymore. But I think some people need it to learn (in lack of a better word) ''life''.
In the military you learn a great deal about responsibility, and responsibility is the cornerstone of society.

Just noticed that my country flag might be misleading - I'm German, the US Flag just indicates me studying in the US right now.

I'm generally in favour of consciption. However, the alternative of doing community service / civilian service can also provide a very useful experience, in my opinion. When I was about to be drafted into the Bundeswehr, I decided to do civilian service instead - don't get me wrong, I'd have liked to do my basic training, but civilian service provided me with the option of getting experience in a field of work that I would like to work in later. I served nine months in a hospital as a nursing assistant on a station for cardiac and pulmonologic diseases, because I wanted to become a doctor later. Believe me, that was hard work and I definitely learned something for life there.

So, I guess you could say I'm generally in favour of young people doing something for their country for a few months. But maybe I'm just a bit pissed off because sooo many people here in Germany just try to trick their way around service (while I was proud of being evaluated fit for service in all units of the army, except for watch guard in front of the barracks - too small to be intimidating, that seemed to be the reason ). There are whole websites about ways to get evaluated unfit for service in the Bundeswehr/civilian service. I mean, come on! Is it so hard?

On the other hand, I've seen at least one example where I'd say conscription didn't teach the individual in this case very much. The guy was an amicable, sporty person, together with a girlfriend he loved...then he got conscripted and landed in a flak battery, where he had exactly NOTHING to do for 6 of the 9 months. Well, the result was basically him starting to party WAY too hard and getting drunk as often as possible. Hey, I don't want to say you shouldn't party hard - but with this guy, it was really a change from a sensible amount of doing so to doing so every other day. He's still a nice guy, I'm just not sure that conscription really had a positive impact on him. Just as a li'l counter-example.

@matty - Didn't Cameron announce the creation of Citizen Service at the Tory Party conference? It won't be military per se, but I think it could help...

Personally, I would be staunchly against mandatory military service/conscription. I really value being able to pursue my own interests and not having to live under a heavily structured schedule/routine.

If the U.S. reinstated the draft, which I doubt will ever happen considering Vietnam and the mess that made, I would would burn my draft card and get the hell out of the country.

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

That said, I'm not in favor of mandatory service. As legoburner said, there are people that simply shouldn't work in that sort of environment. These people, if forced to remain in the service can only have a negative impact on the effectiveness of that body.

Something so critical as the military should not be diluted due to divese purposes like social improvement. If we're going to go that route, then we need to enact alternatives forms of service. Maybe something like "no service if you go to college, learn a trade, or do something exemplary."

In the Bundeswehr, conscripts are not meant to go on any kind of mission. They stay in the country, get their training and hang around in their chosen profession for the next few months. The guys who go to Afghanistan for example are all professional full-time soldiers. I think the German public would go mad if someone would suggest sending conscripts to the IED-infested dusty roads of Afghanistan. (Seems too much like Imperial Guard even for me.) So, the effectiveness of our army is not really affected by conscription in any way. Well, maybe it binds some manpower at home, but it's not like we're going to send everything anywhere anytime soon...

Apart from that, an interesting thing: Studies (and a strike) have shown that many parts of the German healthcare system - hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the handicapped - could not run properly if it weren't for all the young men deciding to do civilian service in those areas. Conscription and alternative civilian service are quite deeply connected with some institutions here; if they stop conscription, there will be a hell of a mess for a while, I think.

I personally am against conscription. I am a pacifist. I unfortunately do understand that sometimes there is a need for a military, but do not believe we should be forced into it. If you're comfortable joining the military, feel free to do so, but we should not be forced to kill others because "military service for a few years gives you a keen eye for a detail, a cool head, higher chance of being bilingual, a strong arm, a stomach for a fight, and a heart for winning minds." And don't say that by being conscripted, people are not forced to kill, for that is the entire purpose of a military organization, to kill others.

A pacifist that plays orks?!

Lol National Service.

All you have to do is refuse, and they lock you up.

Given the choice between risking getting shot by an AK47 older than your mum in some sand/rock/mud filled hell-hole with no chance of medical care more advanced than "you didn't need that leg anyway!" or risking being shanked in a prison where there is at least the option of, say, going to a hospital or shanking them first, I pick the latter.

I'd strongly be against it. I was seriously considering going into the military for many of the benefits listed in favor of a national service program, but decided against it for one simple reason. No one is going to order me to kill a man for a reason I don't agree with.

Gwar, well and I suppose kk and legoburner as well.. you all really don't understand what national service actually entails surely?

Women do it too! I'm not saying we force everyone into the sas and its bayonets and grenade time..

Gwar, you like hitting the books mate, is stick you in intelligence, no AKs in sight there, you could read all the genforce codex... have a whale of a time!

I'm with WitzKatz on this. I agree that everyone should perform national service, be it in a more civillian (heathcare, etc), or a more military form (working with "proper" soldiers to maintain gear, manning checkpoints and so on in the home nation, etc), although everyone should undergo basic training.

I think that a great many public services should be run by this labour pool - public transport, postal services, etc.

I also think we should start young - weekend and holidays taken up with activity camps and so on (kind of like the scouts but more active).

I think it would be fine for a year or two of late teens.

My mates that were in the army are (mostly) sane, decent and responsible folks.

Now... would it be equal or would the rich have the ability to bypass it or end up getting free passes to the 'officer' training bit, ie get out of anything serious card...

Cos I'd like it to be purely meritocracy based according to aptitude tests on induction and continued appraisal for specialisation, not immediate elevations based on a double-barrel name...

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of National Service, per se - and this is coming from an ex-soldier! I do agree that it can be hugely beneficial to putting some kids on the straight and narrow and giving back some much needed discipline, drive and respect back to our nation's youth, but as Lego pointed out, there are just as many people who don't really fit into the military mould.

Just as it is bad to paint everyone with the same brush, it is pretty shabby to suggest that everyone should be lumped into the military. I think we need some sort of system which includes military service for those who choose while having other options for those who don't want to go into the military. Not sure what those options could be, maybe hospital work, community work, something like that?

I envisage a system whereby, lets say from the age of 18 you go onto a national database for service. When you get picked or drafted, you then have a choice as to how to spend that service; whether than is in the military or in some other work. Perhaps there could be some sort of aptitude test to determine the best placements for each individual but the bottom line ought to be that everyone has to complete a year's service, for example, regardless of social standing, academic scores or whatever. That way everyone gives something back and no-one dodges it.

maybe if you said no benifits till you have done national service, or a member of your household has (child ben etc) that might be good

filbert wrote:
Just as it is bad to paint everyone with the same brush, it is pretty shabby to suggest that everyone should be lumped into the military. I think we need some sort of system which includes military service for those who choose while having other options for those who don't want to go into the military. Not sure what those options could be, maybe hospital work, community work, something like that?

I envisage a system whereby, lets say from the age of 18 you go onto a national database for service. When you get picked or drafted, you then have a choice as to how to spend that service; whether than is in the military or in some other work. Perhaps there could be some sort of aptitude test to determine the best placements for each individual but the bottom line ought to be that everyone has to complete a year's service, for example, regardless of social standing, academic scores or whatever. That way everyone gives something back and no-one dodges it.

Yeah...

Not sure I'm at all sold on the notion of slack-jawed chavs and chavettes let loose in the NHS around the vulnerable and medications...

Aptitude tests sound good.


Remember, service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?

Battlecannon it phil wrote:maybe if you said no benifits till you have done national service, or a member of your household has (child ben etc) that might be good

Ah, ok. So, I should not get unemployment when I lost my job because of banks fething over the country (and then getting my Taxes to fix their mess, and they STILL get paid massive bonuses) until I have gone and shot someone in the name of a Government I didn't vote for?

What about someone who is unable to work because of a Disability? You gonna make them starve till they magically get a flying wheelchair to mount their M16 or whatever?

Great idea!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

filbert wrote:
Just as it is bad to paint everyone with the same brush, it is pretty shabby to suggest that everyone should be lumped into the military. I think we need some sort of system which includes military service for those who choose while having other options for those who don't want to go into the military. Not sure what those options could be, maybe hospital work, community work, something like that?

I envisage a system whereby, lets say from the age of 18 you go onto a national database for service. When you get picked or drafted, you then have a choice as to how to spend that service; whether than is in the military or in some other work. Perhaps there could be some sort of aptitude test to determine the best placements for each individual but the bottom line ought to be that everyone has to complete a year's service, for example, regardless of social standing, academic scores or whatever. That way everyone gives something back and no-one dodges it.

Yeah...

Not sure I'm at all sold on the notion of slack-jawed chavs and chavettes let loose in the NHS around the vulnerable and medications...

Aptitude tests sound good.


Remember, service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?

Haha, yeah point taken, but you could make use of them for cleaning or menial work - I mean, that's basically what National Service is anyway. Point being that I think we need to dispel this growing sense amongst not just young people, but the country in general, that everyone is somehow owed a living without having to get off their arse and do something about it. Part of it is the legacy of the UK having such a good social security programme but when you talk to people of my grandparent's age, they saw it as a safety net, as a last resort whereas these days it is all too often seen as a way of life, an immutable right and a way of life for millions.