Military Conscription

[Reality]

"Military Conscription (also known as "The Draft", the "Call-Up" or "National Service") is a general term for involuntary labor demanded by an established authority. It is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (usually male) to serve in the armed forces"

Personally, this is another issue I'm very against under pretty much all circumstances. I don't believe anyone should be forced to join the military under any circumstances. It contradicts the whole idea of having free will.

I think a volunteer-based military definitely works best. Even in a serious war, I don't think conscription should be used to fill in empty slots in the military.

Men and older teenage boys were drafted into the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, which had a death toll of over 58,000+ many of which were conscriptees who were sent there against their will, and probably did not support the war to begin with. It's basically paid slavery if you think of it.

What's your opinion?

[TigerLily]

I am also against the idea of military conscription, although during many war situations extraordinary actions are taken to meet extraordinary circumstances (not justifying anything here, just pointing it out).

This does point out some interesting arguments though. In a serious war, such as WWII, with the threat of Nazism spreading throughout Europe and the massacre of many, many millions of Jews, handicapped and homosexuals, is it necessary to implement conscription or will human nature and a sense of national duty be enough to enable a volunteer-based military to work effectively (remember that there were those younger than the army age limit lying about their age to be able to fight for their country, for example)?

It is certainly an interesting debate, and while I think in the vast vast majority of cases (such as the Vietnam War) military conscription is a truly terrible thing, in some instances, such as that of WWII, I am more on the fence for the time being.

[ManyPearTree]

Seeing that my dad served 16 years in service, I have just had to learn that one day we might have to go out there..

Am I against it?: Yes, but it is better to just assume that it will happen in your life to help you be prepared for it rather than a frantic mess which could hamper your performance if you were drafted..

My opinion: I think that in all countries of the world should be able to defend their country knowing that it's people are willing to fight for it regardless the consequences.

In the US, don't you
Have to sign a document that enrolls you in the draft list or whatever it's called?
If you don't sign it, you'll be subject to being denied to goverment beifits..

[Whisper]

Canada doesn't have a draft
From what social 30 I remember we tried it during both world wars and it almost started a civil war each time; MASSIVE protests.

but voluntary enlistment in Canada (excluding Quebec, shocker there) was very high

[Atonement]

I'm 100% against the draft. I believe it is against our constitutional rights. We are "free" yet we are forced to be pushed into the line of fire? Heeeeeell no. Reminds me of a great video. Pay attention to the symbolism.

mX6dHWyqwNo

[Sazcazam]

I think conscription is ok.. if it was ok in the past, then it should be ok now. I do hope that we don't end up in a huge world war though.. in which case we would all have to help in the war effort. There are many boys who would benefit A LOT from being sent to the army

[Reality]

I think conscription is ok.. if it was ok in the past, then it should be ok now. I do hope that we don't end up in a huge world war though.. in which case we would all have to help in the war effort. There are many boys who would benefit A LOT from being sent to the army
Why not girls as well, on that point, actually? Although National Service is traditionally male-only in most countries, I see it as sexist to both men and women.

Also how would they benefit, exactly? Why need they be forced to join?

Even if there was another major war, I'm still against it. The people that want to join the military will still join it, and the people that won't, just won't. People that badly don't want to be there will be crappy soldiers anyway, as they'll go AWOL by attempting to run away by ditching posts, etc etc.

What about the various draftee soldiers that are against war/killing/fighting? Even worse on them.

[Sugaree]

I honestly think that Military Conscription is wrong. The way I see it, is that we are a "free" people, yet we're told to, against our wills, to join the military. Even if we were in a serious war, I wouldn't go into the draft. I would outright refuse. If I'm a "free" person, able to do what I want to when I want to do it, then why am I being forced to join a branch of service in the military? It's just something that the government uses as an excuse to somehow make us "stronger" military wise.

This is my personal opinion. To be completely honest with you, I have NOTHING against the armed forces of our country. If you want to go into the Marines/Navy/Air Force/Army, then fine, I won't stop you. I'm glad that you are helping to defend our freedom. My grandfather is a former Marine. He served in Vietnam. He was one of the captured soldiers who were tortured in prisons. He doesn't talk about it, and I repsect what he did by sacrificing himself for his country. That's why I respect them.

[Antares]

I think that military conscription is acceptable in some cases.
I think that if a draft is issued then it needs to be COMPLETELY unbiased. Like, they get a list of people and choose. There is no way out. No favorites. Nothing. I mean, hell the prince of england is the fecking military yet the son of some rich asshole in the US can easily get out of a draft it seems.
Also, it has to be completely justified. As in means of national security. Not just going invading countries because we are the "police power".

I am all for patriotism and serving your country but I think the only acceptable issue where a draft would be needed is if we got attacked like Sept. 11 again. The war in iraq is crap and nothing similar to it should have been drafted.

Vietnam shouldn't have been drafted. It was a big mistake and thats why we have some of our problems now.

Umm...who others did they draft? Civil war, that was necessary :P

Korean, that shouldn't have been drafted.

WW1 and 2 were necessary drafts.

Yea. So thats my opinion. It is necessary and acceptable in some cases. Some its not.

[Jean Poutine]

I support national service. No, I'm not crazy.

Two conditions though :

1) no longer than 3 years
2) the conscript doesn't have to sit in the reserves after his service and cannot be forced to go to war. During their service, they CAN be forced to (duh).

An obligatory military service fosters discipline and good habits while also teaching tons of useful skills, like defending oneself, career skills etc.

Tons of countries who aren't even at war, like Switzerland and Singapore, have an obligatory service period.

[Whisper]

Finland has mandatory military training for all boys I think:
The standard readiness strength is 34,700 people in uniform, of which 25 % are professional soldiers. A universal male conscription is in place, under which all men above 18 years of age serve for 6 to 12 months of armed service or 12 months of civilian (non-armed) service.
Speaking as a boy that would be forced to join and serve I agree with this 100% I wish Canada had a similar practice it has cut down on allot of crime in Finland.

Why not girls as well, on that point, actually? Although National Service is traditionally male-only in most countries, I see it as sexist to both men and women.

I disagree there we had a huge debate about this in my crim class last semester. In our modern age girls are taking on more and more jobs that traditionally were all male; doctors, politicians, lawyers, etc.... and that doesn't bother me in the slightest because they have just as much potential to succeed as any man would. In the military its a different story I don't care if they join there are literally thousands of jobs in the military I'm sure they could contribute in allot of areas, I don't care if a girl commands the entire pacific fleet but i DO NOT want girls on the front line. Why? Because when I was looking at joining the military when I was 17-18 I was looking at all the requirements and for all the physical aspect of it the girls had completely different standards, they didn't have to run as fast, they didn't have to carry as much, they had longer on all the obstacle courses etc... Why? Because girls are not a physically strong as males thats a fact its not sexist its evolution. So if your out on the front line and you get shot badly in the leg er something and she is the only other solider there, your life literally depends on her alone, do you think she could pick you up and run back to the rest of your platoon? Especially if she didn't even have to past the same physical constraints as you to get to job? Your life is now in a greater degree of danger to satisfy political correctness.

As far as I'm concerned it's the same with fire fighters, police, coast guard rescue divers, anything where physical strength is a key factor in your ability to perform correctly in keeping yourself safe and helping someone else or arresting a perp high as fuck on meth.

[Antares]

Well, that would be great. I mean, Finland is one of the best places to live in the world. So, yea. I don't think its reasonable for the US but other countries, like Canada, France, etc. would probably fix the need for America to "invervene" all the dang time. Gosh. Okay, thats a different debate

[Whisper]

Well, that would be great. I mean, Finland is one of the best places to live in the world. So, yea. I don't think its reasonable for the US but other countries, like Canada, France, etc. would probably fix the need for America to "invervene" all the dang time. Gosh. Okay, thats a different debate

People rarely ask america to intervene
You just have a tendency to do so
Which in allot of cases pisses allot of other countries off
and why not the US?
You have more gun related deaths, gangs, etc... then allot of other countries strictly due to population
why would we need it but not you?

In most cases your peace makers usually by killing everyone else
and then countries like Canada who invented peacekeeping go in to maintain it
Its worked well to maintain western superiority
which i'm perfectly okay with
I have no interest in the balance shifting to China or back to Russia

I do agree with you though that Canada and other NATO nations like France need to pull more weight

[Antares]

Well, I certainly think that the United States diplomacy policies are ridiculous. If I were president, I would just stay in my own little corner and stay out of everyone elses shit.
I think the intervening makes things worse and comes back to bite us in the ass. Like all the time.

I don't think that conscription that Finland has is a good idea for us because there are a lot of us. There are 300 million people here. Compared to other smaller countries like Finland and Canada. So it would be hard. Also, Americans are crazy. They would probably take the military skills to murder eachother in more creative and effective ways. Even when kids go to military schools, it doesn't really "work" as far as behavior goes I think

[Hyper]

If a country has served its purpose and fulfilled its reason for existance.. Most men will be ready to take arms to protect it if necessary.

What I mean to say is that forcing somebody to do something is a very brute method, nobody is going to give it their all if their forced into something.. And in a war most likely somebody forced against his will, will desert whenever he gets the chance..

If its voluntary and a country has been doing whats right ( in my eyes serving the people, protecting them, caring for them as much as possible etc ) then there will be men willing to protect it and give their all.

Though the thought of any war is sickening to me...

[Reality]

I disagree there we had a huge debate about this in my crim class last semester. In our modern age girls are taking on more and more jobs that traditionally were all male; doctors, politicians, lawyers, etc.... and that doesn't bother me in the slightest because they have just as much potential to succeed as any man would. In the military its a different story I don't care if they join there are literally thousands of jobs in the military I'm sure they could contribute in allot of areas, I don't care if a girl commands the entire pacific fleet but i DO NOT want girls on the front line. Why? Because when I was looking at joining the military when I was 17-18 I was looking at all the requirements and for all the physical aspect of it the girls had completely different standards, they didn't have to run as fast, they didn't have to carry as much, they had longer on all the obstacle courses etc... Why? Because girls are not a physically strong as males thats a fact its not sexist its evolution. So if your out on the front line and you get shot badly in the leg er something and she is the only other solider there, your life literally depends on her alone, do you think she could pick you up and run back to the rest of your platoon? Especially if she didn't even have to past the same physical constraints as you to get to job? Your life is now in a greater degree of danger to satisfy political correctness.
It's the choice of the military to lower fitness standards, not exactly because all women are unable. You do know two or three women have passed the British Royal Marine Commando training, a 30 week long, grueling infantry course which is the longest of all NATO countries, without any fitness standards being watered down for them.

Women are only kept out of direct combat because of traditionalists and of course because they're theoretically unable for it. But has any country actually had proper experience with women infanteers, etc.? I know the Soviet Union has had a good experience with female snipers and fighter pilots during WWII, never heard any bad stories, besides what some people think.

The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and most of Western Europe don't allow women in direct combat, so I can't see how they would have experience with women in combat. Canada and NZ let women in the infantry etc, but they're only peace-keeping militaries on the world stage, so I can't see any evidence from there either.

Anyway, this isn't what the debate is really about. I'm against the draft for anybody, but there's no real excuse to keep women out of it if there is a draft. Even if they're not allowed into combat, there's many many other roles in the military they should be put into. Only like 30% of the military is actually direct combat. There's medics, military police, engineers, drivers, pilots, sailors, clerical staff, mechanics, and so on/so forth. There really is no excuse for women to be excluded from the draft when/if there is one.


Well, that would be great. I mean, Finland is one of the best places to live in the world. So, yea. I don't think its reasonable for the US but other countries, like Canada, France, etc. would probably fix the need for America to "invervene" all the dang time. Gosh. Okay, thats a different debate
America doesn't have any need to intervene with anybody, nor are they really asked to. Your government decides to do it themselves. Since when has America needed to intervened with Canada/France? >_>

If you mean Iraq and Afghanistan, they pretty much already do. Except it's corrupt.

Anyway. I don't think it's reasonable for any of the countries you've mentioned to have conscription.

[lamboman43]

I think it is wrong. It is unconstitutional and we shouldn't be forced to risk our lives. If drafting happens when I am old enough I will seriously move somewhere else in the world. I should be able to choose if I want to risk my life.

[Camazotz]

Although it should be an honor to serve your country, conscription is the wrong way to go. No one should be forced to sacrifice your life for your country, although it is the most admirable way to go. Instead, any volunteers should receive many perks, such as a pension, tax cuts, etc.

[lamboman43]

Although it should be an honor to serve your country, conscription is the wrong way to go. No one should be forced to sacrifice your life for your country, although it is the most admirable way to go. Instead, any volunteers should receive many perks, such as a pension, tax cuts, etc.

Perks would be nice.

[Aneklusmos]

I do not support conscription and I never will. I do not support war and never will. If I ever am drafted I will send it back to them threatening to burn it, just as my father did. I'll do alternative service but not that. It'll cost me goverment financial aid for college but so be it

[Music Lover]

Finland has mandatory military training for all boys I think:

The standard readiness strength is 34,700 people in uniform, of which 25 % are professional soldiers. A universal male conscription is in place, under which all men above 18 years of age serve for 6 to 12 months of armed service or 12 months of civilian (non-armed) service.
Speaking as a boy that would be forced to join and serve I agree with this 100% I wish Canada had a similar practice it has cut down on allot of crime in Finland.


in finland, if you do not want to work for the military, there is alternative 'community service'. This means that nobody will be forced to be in the army.

all men above 18 years of age serve for 6 to 12 months of armed service or 12 months of civilian (non-armed) service.