This question was inspired by a post on lemmy.zip about lowering the minimum age to purchase firearms in the US, and a lot of commeters brought up military service and training as a benchmark to normal civilians, and how if guns would be prevalent, then firearm training should be more common.
For reference, I live in the USA, where the minimum age to join the military is 18, but joining is, for the most part, optional. I also know some friends that have gone through the military, mostly for college benefits, and it has really messed them up. However, I have also met some friends from south korea, where I understand military service is mandatory before starting a more normal career. From what I’ve heard, military service was treated more as a trade school, because they were never deployed, in comparison to American troops.
I just wanted to know what the broader Lemmy community thought about mandatory military service is, especially from viewpoints outside the US.
Colombian here. Mandatory military service is morally indistinguishable from slavery. I only was spared from it because I used a loophole that lets you skip it if you’re already in college.
Just imagine if instead of millitary service, it was compulsary public service that actually benefitted society. Nursing, construction/infrastructure, farming, teaching/childcare, etc.
Its astrounding how much money is pumped into the military industrial complex when it could be used to fund to many other programs for public good.
But that would be sOciALiSm.
More hilarious when considering the US Military is an inherently socialist institution.
My sister and brother-in-law will go to the commissary, stay on base housing, get their paycheck from the US Govt., receive public Healthcare, and the GI Bill, then promptly go home and post on Facebook about how socialism bad.
Realizing the US Army is the most socialist institution I’ve ever encountered didn’t happen till years after I was out, lol
You want school? Get it! You want food? Get it! You want clothes? You already fucking got em
I’m not sure from the context of your comment with that “most socialist” line if you know or not but…
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. End line.
Everything else is just how the society organizes itself. The US Army seeing to the basic needs of its troops is not socialism, it is the government doing things. Scandinavian countries providing maternity and unemployment benefits is not socialism. It is the government doing things.
The US Army is not socialism. Nor is any other professional military, not even the ones working for socialist states. They are organizations trading capital for labor to empower the state.
If you were a slave soldier, taken in a war raid, working for a monarch like the Janissaries, they would probably still provide you all of the necessities to function, even spending money to entertain yourself and maintain morale, and it wouldn’t be socialism either.
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.
For instance, Trump’s plan for the feds to buy TikTok
Hell no.
The premise of M-L types who wanted the state to control production for the workers is that the government was the workers, aka the dictatorship of the proletariat. In doing so excess production would be traded within the system to provide things like healthcare and housing.
In theory.
That obviously didn’t work out too hot, but even that is different in theory from a fascist or otherwise oligarchal state controlling production for the benefit of the owner class with absolutely no pretentions of providing social services with the profits. They are proudly ripping up any social safety net they find as a matter of ideology.
Tl;Dr it’s quite literally the opposite of socialism when kings or oligarchs control and profit from the state owned enterprise. That is just the eponymous late stage capitalism, or neofeudalism/technocracy depending on the angle you want.
It’s socialism as described by the GOP though, which is why it’s so funny.
Yeah, but at the same time that’s how they logic themselves into “the more things the government does the more socialist it is, and when it does a lot of things, that’s communism.”
All that misinformation has a purpose, and it’s not to make the world a better place.
This exists in Austria. Males have to choose between 6 months of military or 9 months of public service. Interestingly enough the existence of the public service option has been a strong reason why people voted against removing the mandatory service some years ago.
Out of curiosity, what do they do for public service?
Driving ambulance cars and doing first aid, helping in kindergarten, retirement homes, homeless shelters, institutions for people with disabilities,…
The ambulance is probably the most popular position, you can also choose what you want to do to a certain extent.
I think compulsory retail service would fix society.
That’s too good of an idea to be usable, the powers that don’t want it would tell the nurses, construction workers and farmers their livelihoods were being undermined by slave labour.
This is exactly what I would want a compulsory service to look like.
Fuck the military, let’s build bridges and houses and schools, and cafeterias, and farms, and staff them. Roads and hospitals.
Nobody ever needed to make a fucking bomb
I fully support this. It would help on so many levels. Provide a cheap workforce to help with currently in demand stuff and fix shit, help young people get away from home, get a new view on life and get some starter cash, and mix people from all walks of life. I genuinely see no downside.
Some places you can opt to do compulsory public service instead of military service.
AmeriCorps is exactly this, but it’s obviously not compulsory.
Does that still exist?
I don’t think that would be any better. It is still compulsory service and a violation of people’s individual freedoms to choose how to live their lives.
(and many countries do allow that as an alternative e.g. for conscientious objectors)
how if guns would be prevalent
hahahaha ‘would’ hahahhahhah. hilarious.
a huge contigent of domestic terrorism in the united states is ex-military white guys. also, a huge percentage of the homeless population are veterans… it clearly leaves a psychological stain we then refuse to mop up. but yeah, lets push everyone through agencies with the worst sexual assault tallies in the country. awesome.
You don’t use a mop to clean up a stain, you mop up a spill which can then leave a stain. You have to scrub a stain and maybe use something like vinegar or baking soda.
Morally? Fuck that shit. But, being a Finn and sharing a huge border with Russia, I see why it is a thing here and in a lot of countries.
As for America, your military seems to have enough people in it, and the US hasn’t needed to actually defend itself for a looooong time.
The US military has actually been short on recruits for a long time now due to the obesity epidemic.
I mean we could stop maintaining an invasion force in basically every corner of the globe simultaneously, but we aren’t filthy communists or whatever.
Huh, that’s new to me. But, on the other hand, it isn’t like America uses its military to defend itself, but rather just invade others.
In somw places it’s more necessary than others. I don’t think US would benefit from it, but here in Finland I’d rather keep it. I’d try to make civilian service more common choice than currently, though.
they were never deployed
You absolutely should not ever get deployed during mandatory service. That shit is not okay.
What kind of purpose does the military serve over there? Is seeing soldiers doing civilian stuff a common thing?
My perspective has always been that the military works overseas, completely seperate from most Americans daily life
It’s called Finnish Defence Forces and its purpose is just that; to defend Finland. We have a 1400km border with Russia.
Most conscripts are around 18 to 20 years old and the service is something between 6 to 12 months depending on your position. In general you spend weekdays at the barracks and weekends at home - with some exceptions. You don’t generally see people in military uniforms outside the military areas except for when they’re traveling to and from the barracks.
The service is mandatory for men but recently there has been some discussion on expanding that to apply to women as well. I think it’s a good system. Even if not military, then atleast some sort of community service. It acts as a sort of rite of passage.
I don’t think community service for women would be anything but a punishment, it wouldn’t improve defence in any way and would just be an excuse to not pay someone to do the same job.
I’ve lately been thinking that some kind of weekend-long preparedness course every year, or every few years, might be a good option. With an intensive 1-4 week infodump and practical training to start with. Hopefully in case of SHTF we could help keep everyone warm, fed and un-panicked for at least a few days while everyone further up the chain has their hands full. Also might help combat misinformation, maintain first-aid and civilian firefighting skills, enhance home cybersecurity, establish a neighborhood LoRa/Meshtastic network or get everyone on Briar for communication without major infrastructure (okay, that’s just me daydreaming), etc.
But yeah, pro-mandatory-military-training in our case, target group however the defence forces wants to set it, but don’t really see the point in a US setting.
The point of military service isn’t to fight wars abroad, which americans seem to do a lot, but to train reservists who can later defend the country if needed. It ranges between 6-11 months I think, which wouldn’t give you enough time to both train the people and get something done anyway.
Civilian service or whatever is the correct term is in english, isn’t soldiers doing civilian stuff, but an alternative path for those who don’t want to be in the military. You’d work for some public organization, as a civilian.
Nobody should be forced to be a war machine. If you want, you can encourage it, give it appealing perks, but ultimately the decision should be down to the individual if they want to spend a chunk of their life on that.
In Switzerland we do mandatory military service or public service if you don’t do the military.
Both are ok, I only know the military but it’s a good experience. At first you don’t really want to do it but then you have a lot of fun, drink tons of cheap beers and learn to shoot (skill that you have to maintain for several years with mandatory shooting sessions).
Overall it’s more of a school of life rather than military school. I knew people in the medics and they did jack shit. I was in DCA and did jack shit. Most people I talk to did dumb stuff and most of us have good and funny memories from that time.
Is this a useful military force? Probably not, but we are Switzerland so who cares?
Depends on the unit. I did it in the infantry and it sucked. Would never do it again.
That’s what I heard as well, the few grenadiers I know told me the same.
It seems that they are the only ones having to do the usual crap and suffering.
Yeah it is awesome, it just cost me a year of my professional career without any real benefits…
And our military is mostly regarded as a joke, I am seriously not sure why we even have it. It would probably collapse in days if it needs to defend our country.
I like it for the unifying experience it is. We all do it, it becomes part of our education and gives us the feel of all being Swiss besides our different cultures and languages.
But seeing every votes results (Röstigraben, cities vs countryside) proves that it is not a huge success 😅
One thing I don’t like at all is that in order to climb high hierarchy in some companies, you have to be a former military officer, preferably Swiss-German (bonus point if you’ve done a shit economy school).
When I started learning my job we could do our military service AT work as it was considered to be an essential nation wide security job. I did not profit from this but the deal was to go to work in military uniform, getting your salary paid by the military while continuing to work for your boss. Definitely a win for the company and a huge financial loss for the confederation. They stopped that when they realized it was dumb to pay salaries to people not actually working for you.
My opinion is fuck no.
I was one of the last people in Sweden to muster for conscription, I failed the first (hearing) test and was discharged.
This was just before conscription was ended, and about a decade later we have conscription again in Sweden.
There are two main advantages to universal conscription in my oppinion.
- It gives the population unity, it is a unifying experience that you have in common with everyone, this creates a stronger society.
- It gives the population a general understanding of guns and military action, this is useful in war as people are already familiar with the basic concepts of firearms handling and military tactics, ok, they won’t be as good as professional soldiers, but they understand the concepts and that is a good foundation to build uppon.
So many people in the US join the military. I don’t really see a unifying experience happen over the pond besides PTSD…
6 percent. That’s the percentage of the US population who are veterans. I don’t think a military only mandatory service would work in the US but we don’t have the same effect just based on a volunteer military.
Fair point, my experience is from Sweden where we have had peace for 200 years or so
It’s ridiculous and should never be implemented.
I’m all for mandatory military training. Deployment is a separate issue.
A lot of countries make that distinction. Everyone goes through basic but you have to volunteer into a deployable job.
Do you consider the right to give up a basic human right? I do. Military service should never be mandatory. Also, the whole concept of nation-states is obsolete and harmful and humanity should try to move to stateless/borderless forms of society.
Mandatory training - Yes
Mandatory service - NoIn the event of a real defensive war, where your nation is invaded with the intent of conquest or subjugation, you will not have a lack of volunteers. You will have a lack of trained people.
It takes a couple of months to train a new recruit. Having everyone ready to go will help tremendously during the initial stages of war.
On the other hand, a permanent mandatory service is 1. A waste of money, 2. Open for exploitation by corrupt governments
It takes a couple of months to train a new recruit.
Longer. Basic Training is 8 to 13 weeks, and only prepares a recruit for immediate entry into a tech school. They need several additional months in a tech school before they are qualified to deploy.
If you want the general populace to have training in some particular skill by the time they are adults, you need to talk to the Department of Education, not the military.
With that in mind: The overwhelming majority of manpower requirements in any military operation are associated with support, not combat. More vocational focus in high school, especially on the machining and construction trades, will ensure a large pool of people with the knowledge and skills that will be needed most.
The overwhelming majority of manpower requirements in any military operation are associated with support, not combat.
I remember reading that in Iraq, something like 10% of military personnel actually saw combat.
There’s a lot that has to happen along the haft of the spear to make the tip of the spear work.
In the event of a real defensive war, where your nation is invaded with the intent of conquest or subjugation, you will not have a lack of volunteers. You will have a lack of trained people.
Hey, I have a (purely theoretical!) question if you don’t mind.
So, if there was (theoretically of course) a war out there, where the government openly admits that they lack volunteers, people are trying to escape the country en masse by illegally crossing the border, and also there were thousands of videos online about that government kidnapping people off the streets (so that they have at least someone to send into the war), would it mean by your definition that such a war is not “with the intent of conquest or subjugation”?
Arguing semantics is not arguing in good faith.
In this “purely theoretical” case, exhaustion plays a huge role. There would not be a lack of volunteers in the beginning, say in the first year of war. After a couple of years and no hope of victory, it’s not surprising some people could decide to give up.
Now, should they be forced into war anyway? Tragedy of the commons or some such philosophical dilemma…
I don’t think I am “arguing semantics” (whatever that means), and you evaded the question :(
Your question makes no sense. The war being with the intention of conquest or subjugation has to do with what the attacker is doing, whereas all that came before is about what the defending side of this “hypothetical” conflict is doing. The two are not related, so the question doesn’t make sense.
If your question was supposed to be something among the lines of “then how do you explain this clearly conquest/subjugation was where the defending side has no volunteers” then the answer is what he already told you in the reply but you claim he didn’t, i.e. attrition is a thing, and after years of conflicts people lose hope. In this theoretical conflict there might have been a high influx of volunteers at the beginning of that conflict, if there were then that could have allowed a theoretical small country to defend themselves against even a theoretical huge military superpower for more time than anyone would have predicted. But after a year of your country being devastated, no one coming for help, and the military superpower just keep sending fresh soldiers constantly from an apparent infinite pool, it’s understandable that people will lose hope and not volunteer anymore.
It depends on how it’s done.
First, there has to be a compensation. Generally speaking free college gets tied to it a lot. In the US a mandatory service isn’t getting off the ground without it.
Second, there needs to be multiple avenues of service. It cannot just be military. To be honest, the military can’t handle the number of conscripts. There’s about half a million every year. So spreading that out into other service avenues such as a construction corps, EMTs, hospital helpers, legislative staff, libraries, etc, is required. (The specifics are obviously up for debate)
I do believe a mandatory service brings people together and strengthens a country. But it’s just not possible for a large country like the US to do military only mandatory service.
I declare everything I want to happen mandatory.
My response to the title: No
If I am being forced to, I will try to steer it towards any non-combant service like IT or (if necessary) social service.
I think mandatory public service would be good, with an option to choose non-combatant military roles
I’ve thought a required 2 years military or 1 year in a customer service job like retail right after high school would make fast change to people’s attitudes and empathy.
I worked retail on a military base, you’d think they’d be better behaved that civilians, but they aren’t. Especially the Chief’s wives.
No, I won’t be addressing you by the rank of your equivalent to middle management husband.
maybe not, but from what i’ve seen the consequences are more fair, you don’t get 10 years in prison for doing dumbshit, you get 1000 pushups, or bathroom duty for a year, weird stuff like that. the only thing i really hated about the military was the E1s trolling high school hallways picking up underage girls. that shit was fucked.
Yeah it’s weird that people always ask this question in terms of military service.
