Conscription

[Brian Ellis]

Having read http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...51&ItemID=6303
this got me thinking.

Now, I'm going to abstract from my thoughts the specifically US aspects of the article (otherwise, this would certainly become Temp forum material).

Is conscription (in all countries) desirable?

I believe the answer may be positive, provided that the structure of the conscripted forces was not uniquely military, although founded on military discipline.

It would:
1. enforce all able men and women to perform, say, 2 years of service between the ages of, say, 18 and 26. Deferment should be possible until the end of studies or 25, whichever is the earlier.
2. the first two or three months for all would be a rigidly disciplined boot camp. After that, candidates could opt for a military or non-military branch (government farming, policing, paramedical etc.) with high-discipline field training for the required number of months followed by real service, still with discipline, but at a slightly lower level.
3. all conscripts would be required to wear uniform at all times, even on periods of leave, with clear markings of their units.
4. non-nationals would be able to opt for service either in their home country or their country of residence, the latter only for non-military branches (security)

Advantages:
1. conscription and discipline would instil a sense of civic duty in the victims
2. it would allow victims to acquire some form of trade training and provide university graduates with real-life practical training (something greatly lacking today)
3. a constantly-available force would be available to handle natural or man-made catastrophes and emergencies, for service in any country.
4. it would get the young yobbos off the street
5. it would reduce unemployment figures to negligible levels a) because a slice of the population would be in service and b) because manufacturing industries would be busier, providing the equipment for the services
6. it would increase productivity as the average age of the civilian working population would increase, with a concomitant increased sense of responsibility
7. it would improve the fitness of the population, because the youth will be properly fed with a correctly balanced diet with plenty of exercise (it may be that MacD, KFC and Pizza Hut would have a downturn in sales, but so what?)
8. the youth would develop a better sense of camaraderie, living together 24/7 in minimal comfort barracks, an essential part of discipline.
9. drugs would be strictly forbidden and all conscripts would undergo regular tests, as well as barracks searches with dogs.

Disadvantages:
1. there would be a cost to the nation, but this would be largely offset by a reduction of unemployment benefits, health care costs, etc.
2. there would be a recalcitrant 10% of victims who would revolt at the enforced discipline. This can be cured by a) sending them to military prisons with even harsher discipline, their period there not counting to their two years service b) if this did not work, they would be dishonourably discharged with a certificate and a 5-year interdiction of benefitting from any social services (unemployment, health etc.) and being placed on probation with an electronic tag, so that the police can keep tracks of them and what they are doing. A register of suitable employers could be kept for their benefit (garbage collectors, street cleaners, sewer maintenance staff and suchlike menial jobs) with an obligation they be employed or sent to prison.

Tough, eh? What do you think?

[Greebe]

One exception to your outline would be military service to all prior to College / Uni ie fresh out of High School or 18. If you haven't graduated HS (ie drop out etc) on top of all your normal military duties you have to finish the 12th grade... ie instead of going out with your mates, down time etc.

Reason for my thinking is that this allows a standard level of education and prevents those far to many premadonna jackass Officers who feel they are better than anyone else. This way all get to clean the latrine, mop the floors and all the other things the grunt enlisted must do and do it together as grunts

Now if you wish to be an officer this would be an option directly afterward if you meet the criteria or after you've graduated College/Uni... and none of this I have my bachlors in Arts caca gets you in.

One thing I would change is raise the elegible voting age to 21, a full fledged legal adult with somewhat real world experience.

Also would change the age of eligible drivers to 18... it was bad at 16 when we were kids... today it's alot worse and that's exactly what they are, children. Military service would indoctrinate you into the world of responcible driving once bootcamp was completed.

[Brian Ellis]

Even better, have the driving tuition and test mandatory and ONLY during service! That way, skivers won't be able to drive!

[lecter]

I believe the military should be left to well-paid, well-trained professionals who actually want to be there...At the moment the army can't deal well enough with the head-cases or the people who just can't adjust there-it only makes them worse.

As for the unemployment issue it would solve-let's face it, who actually wants to work can find work, end of story. The people who say they can't find any work are the ones that are too inflexible to consider a job behind a grocery store counter or moving somewhere else.

At least in Romania, few, if any, get any good experience from being in the army...it's just another place to herd the sheep, makes no difference if you're herded as a techie or as a grunt.

[Sasq]

I actually had a similar conversation years ago with a friend in Oz.

The basic gist was, 2 years Community service, maybe caring for old people, helping in schools, mil service, whatever.

However there was a bait, pay is low (ish) but at the end of the service, you could either take a lump of cash, or.. a lump of cash with a round the world plane ticket.

Not only do the young people learn about the community and community values, but then they get to experience the world *to an extent* before they settle down and choose a career.

[rugger]

Re: Conscription

Originally posted by Brian Ellis

3. all conscripts would be required to wear uniform at all times, even on periods of leave, with clear markings of their units.

Advantages:
1. conscription and discipline would instil a sense of civic duty in the victims

A bit like it instilled civic duty into current army ... where stuff like hazing, violence, sexual abuse, rape, bashings ... ect, are done by solders. As usual, the small minority of the population will always do the wrong thing, regardless of it they are conscripted or not.

2. it would allow victims to acquire some form of trade training and provide university graduates with real-life practical training (something greatly lacking today)

I don't think shooting firearms and boot camp would really give university graduates the practical training they require, but point taken. However, at the end of the day, if every university graduate had to do this, and even if it was perfect at providing real life experience, it would still not improve anyone's employment chances (as it would be on everyone's resume)

3. a constantly-available force would be available to handle natural or man-made catastrophes and emergencies, for service in any country.

Yep, and as history has shown, the general competence of conscripts has been woefully low. However, volenters generally spring out of the woodwork whenever an emergency requires it.

4. it would get the young yobbos off the street

Easy arguement to make, easy to refute too. Two years of forced militry service will not stop people becoming alcoholics before, during or after their service.

5. it would reduce unemployment figures to negligible levels a) because a slice of the population would be in service and b) because manufacturing industries would be busier, providing the equipment for the services

This would be true if the government could suddenly pull money out of nowhere to pay for it. To pay for the conscription service, governments would have to charge more tax, which would simply mean that people cannot spend as much of their own money. So while the government creates a new industry via conscription, other industires will suffer as people will not have as much money to invest and spend. That means that economic activity would stay static at best (or get worse, depending on just how inefficient the government is at paying for the conscription service) and no new jobs will be created.

6. it would increase productivity as the average age of the civilian working population would increase, with a concomitant increased sense of responsibility

Thats based on the assumption that the application of "discipline" makes people more committed and responsible. An assumption which I think is wrong.

7. it would improve the fitness of the population, because the youth will be properly fed with a correctly balanced diet with plenty of exercise (it may be that MacD, KFC and Pizza Hut would have a downturn in sales, but so what?)

True, but probably only for the 2 years the person is conscripted for.

8. the youth would develop a better sense of camaraderie, living together 24/7 in minimal comfort barracks, an essential part of discipline.

Yep, as I don't have much experience on this, I will point out that being in forced groups like I was in school sucked for me .... and did not produce any camaraderie improvements.

9. drugs would be strictly forbidden and all conscripts would undergo regular tests, as well as barracks searches with dogs.

And they will still be taking drugs .... because humans by their very nature are easily corruptable, irregardless of training.

Disadvantages:
1. there would be a cost to the nation, but this would be largely offset by a reduction of unemployment benefits, health care costs, etc.

No they wouldn't. The money to pay for conscription will reduce the amount of money flowing in the economy.

2. there would be a recalcitrant 10% of victims who would revolt at the enforced discipline. This can be cured by a) sending them to military prisons with even harsher discipline, their period there not counting to their two years service b) if this did not work, they would be dishonourably discharged with a certificate and a 5-year interdiction of benefitting from any social services (unemployment, health etc.) and being placed on probation with an electronic tag, so that the police can keep tracks of them and what they are doing. A register of suitable employers could be kept for their benefit (garbage collectors, street cleaners, sewer maintenance staff and suchlike menial jobs) with an obligation they be employed or sent to prison.

So, just because someone doesn't like conscription, you are willing to ruin their lives. Sending someone to prision should never be such a trival matter. Makes it easy to see why places like america have such massive prison populations. (wasn't it like 2 million people or some other figure that would be unbelievable if it was in a story)

Tough, eh? What do you think?

I think conscription is a terrible idea. As rosy as your ideas sound to people who dream this, the real thing is nothing like it. Conscripts are at best very low quality grunts in any army.

Furthermore, the idea of having to go to war for the likes of President Bush or Prime Minister John Howard makes me sick.

[Brian Ellis]

Welcome home, Sasq!

I did 2-1/2 years as a conscript. I don't regret it and it certainly broadened my outlook and I met interesting new people and saw new places on active service. In fact, it's possible I may not have chosen this island to retire to, as I fell in love with it and the people while in the army. Of course, I bitched about it, like everyone else.

I agree that the army has to have a solid core of regular pro soldiers, but any Tom, Dick or Harry can become cannon fodder. However, in my vision, as a confirmed pacifist, I was thinking more of service to the community than training to kill people, possibly like something in the ratio of 1:10 military:civil service, or even 1:100.

[Joel]

IMO conscription in any form amounts to nothing more than just another form of slavery.

As far as instilling a sense of civic duty, I don't think involuntary servitude would instill that anymore than morality can be legislated.

Joel

[dbdg]

At 17 I knew exactly what I wanted to do and was doing it, still am. I would not have appreciated being forced to serve 2 years doing something I had no interest in doing.

I would have gone to 'extreme' lengths to not take part.

I appreciate that most young people probably haven't already decided what they want to do at 18 but for the few that have a system like this just sh*t's on them.

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis

I agree that the army has to have a solid core of regular pro soldiers, but any Tom, Dick or Harry can become cannon fodder.

Well in Western Countries, the using people as Cannon fodder is a big no-no, since theres no stomach for large amounts of casusities.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by Joel
IMO conscription in any form amounts to nothing more than just another form of slavery.

As far as instilling a sense of civic duty, I don't think involuntary servitude would instill that anymore than morality can be legislated.

Joel

Which is worse, the "involuntary servitude" that is reasonably well paid, with board and lodgings and training to be useful to the community, or the moral servitude of having no work to do, other than to queue up once a week to obtain your unemployment benefits, with all the free time in the world to spend it on drugs, alcohol or whatever?

By that token, the "voluntary servitude" of being college-educated is even worse, as there is no salary.

Slavery implies doing a lot for nothing but the rags you wear, the meagre food you eat and the flea-ridden paliasse you sleep on and no personal possessions.

When I was in the army, I was relatively rich; I had all I needed for a pleasant existence and saved up enough to allow me to enter civilian life and, eventually, get married. In fact, I had far less pocket money as a civilian, at least for the first few years.

At 17 I knew exactly what I wanted to do and was doing it, still am. I would not have appreciated being forced to serve 2 years doing something I had no interest in doing.

I would have gone to 'extreme' lengths to not take part.

I appreciate that most young people probably haven't already decided what they want to do at 18 but for the few that have a system like this just sh*t's on them.

I knew what I wanted to be from my early teens and I was deferred from the army until I graduated. I didn't want to go in the army and "waste" 30 months of my life. I wanted to work for the career I had chosen. However, after the basic training was over (and I hated that), I slowly began to reap the many benefits that were offered to me, by looking at my "involuntary servitude" (pleonasm) in a positive light. I did many things that I would never have done otherwise. No, I don't regret that "waste" of time.

[DGhost]

Originally posted by Greebe
Reason for my thinking is that this allows a standard level of education and prevents those far to many premadonna jackass Officers who feel they are better than anyone else. This way all get to clean the latrine, mop the floors and all the other things the grunt enlisted must do and do it together as grunts

The only grunts left between the Air Force and the Army is the Army Infantry. Not too sure where the Marines fit into it all, but inside the Air Force there have been huge changes to the way things work to distinguish themselves from the rest of the military (ie, my sister was down at Lackland as an instructor for her ROTC class and mentioned she couldn't remember seeing anyone (in ROTC or normal Basic Training) getting dropped for anything. they consider it "humiliating" and "degrading") and even inside the Army there have been huge strides for all the different branches to differentiate themselves from the Infantry.




Personally, I think that kids these days need some sort of true work experience. Not sitting around flipping burgers work experience - real work. Something that teachers responsibility and accountability and teaches them to not take the world around them for granted so much. It used to be that the Army fit the bill for this - in some ways it might. I think kids these days should volunteer for the military - it is a good experience providing you don't get shot (and I still believe that driving to work every day was probably more dangerous than being in the military).

I do not believe it would work out too well though. I think in the long run the Military would wind up too much like it was during/after vietnam, with similar people and problems. when people are conscripted you cannot easily kick them out - it defeats the purpose of conscripting them in the first place. You wind up with people who don't want to be there and then you run the risk of having a wall-to-wall counseling session in a closet because someone decides that they need to be straightened out. Too many bad things and too many places that you would need to be able to put people who can't be relied on.

Tough question.

[DukeP]

Problem is:

No country need that many soliders, any longer.

When my dad was young, everybody served a couple of years.
When I was young, about ½ of an agegroup served.

Nowadays, its less than 1 in 4.
= no real idea, any longer.
Much cheaper to hire some proffesionel soldiers.


I DO like the democracy behind drafting, tho.
If memory serves me right, it was invented during the french revolution, to assure conservation of the democratic spirit (as well as serving for some cheapass soldiers).

~~DUkeP~~

[spadnos]

Use the system that Robert A. Heinlein made up for Starship Troopers: Only those who have performed their 2 years of "Federal Service" are considered full citens, and only full citizens are eligible to vote or hold office.

"Federal Service" is everything from welfare worker to military to peace corps - basically anything the government currently employs people for.

The general idea was that only people who are willing to serve their country, at low pay, have demonstrated that they're fit to make decisions for the whole country. (If you're strictly out for yourself, then you probably won't vote for the person that will do the most good, but the person that will do the most good for you, regardless of the cost to others)

- Steve

[GT98]

Originally posted by spadnos
Use the system that Robert A. Heinlein made up for Starship Troopers: Only those who have performed their 2 years of "Federal Service" are considered full citens, and only full citizens are eligible to vote or hold office.

"Federal Service" is everything from welfare worker to military to peace corps - basically anything the government currently employs people for.

The general idea was that only people who are willing to serve their country, at low pay, have demonstrated that they're fit to make decisions for the whole country. (If you're strictly out for yourself, then you probably won't vote for the person that will do the most good, but the person that will do the most good for you, regardless of the cost to others)

- Steve

Great idea, but would never work since liberials would say it would desrimnate against people