View Full Version : Do you think the USA should have mandatory military service?
Jack Mehoff
10-22-2003, 10:27 PM
1)Hell ya!!
2)Hell no!! Are you out of your mind?
3)Yes, IF the **** hit the fan like during 'Nam, Korea, WW2, etc.
4)I don't live there, therefore i don't care
IMO, military mandatory is not necessary unless we are deeply involved in conflicts like 'Nam, Korea, WW2. Beside, conscripted military sucks anyway. I rather fight along side someone who volunteer to share my foxhole. So i would pick #3
usa320
10-22-2003, 10:29 PM
nope...
Those that volunteer can be trained longer and better, they are more dedicated and take more pride in what they do, not to say drafted troops dont, but you get situations with 18 year old kids who get a rifle and are in battle 2 weeks later, who dont want to be there.
Vance
10-22-2003, 10:31 PM
And there you go.
There are alot of draft dodgers (or try to be) around the world in countries that demand military service, namely Russia and South Korea. We don't want that happening here...
USMarine3521
10-22-2003, 10:31 PM
nope...
Those that volunteer can be trained longer and better, they are more dedicated and take more pride in what they do, not to say drafted troops dont, but you get situations with 18 year old kids who get a rifle and are in battle 2 weeks later, who dont want to be there.
i say no as well, i'll have to agree with wha the said plus i think we already have enough service men and the technology.
Ratamacue
10-22-2003, 10:32 PM
Definitely no. A conscript army is an army that does not want to fight, not to mention a draft would put public support for any combat action down into the gutter.
By keeping a professional army, you have a well-trained army that has the will to fight when they have to.
Deuterium
10-22-2003, 10:33 PM
Nope....I don't want to have a squad full of SPiers, MOrtimers, Dicimus18, and the rest of those lots.
Seoulstriker
10-22-2003, 10:33 PM
Nope....I don't want to have a squad full of SPiers, MOrtimers, Dicimus18, and the rest of those lots.
i agree.
Theres also the option of Operation Human Shield for all the knuckleheads like those mentioned above (see South Park).
ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
10-22-2003, 10:47 PM
Ya having madatory military service would probably do more harm to the army then good..
usa320
10-22-2003, 10:47 PM
Theres also the option of Operation Human Shield for all the knuckleheads like those mentioned above
p-)
James
10-22-2003, 10:49 PM
Definitely no. A conscript army is an army that does not want to fight, not to mention a draft would put public support for any combat action down into the gutter.
By keeping a professional army, you have a well-trained army that has the will to fight when they have to.
Our conscript army won World War Two - something to think about.
That said, I don't think the U.S. should employ conscription today. Instead, everyone on active duty shold be hit with an indefinite Stop Loss, and we should mobilize all of our reserves and NG troops for further overseas adventures. :roll:
Today's equivalent to the average kid who fought in WWII is dramatically different. From what I have experienced in high school and such I believe although kids are more edumakated these days, they tend to be less mature on average. A conscript army may have worked back then, but today the amount of assclowns that would be recruited would be mind knumbing. I just hope and pray that we do not have a need to reinstate the draft in the future but it would be nice to have the respect for enlisting in the military come back instead of people thinking you are signing your life away to be doomed.
NcDeuce
10-22-2003, 10:54 PM
Nope. I don't want to be stuck in a foxhole with a hippy. Lot of :fork: would be occuring.
although kids are more edumakated these days, they tend to be less mature on average.
Goes well with the old Greek philosophy about how mankind will continually degrade. Moderation is the key!
TheHoleInMyChest
10-22-2003, 11:47 PM
definitely NO on manditory military service... personally idont think we will ever need to either
Jack Mehoff
10-22-2003, 11:51 PM
On the other hand, I don't mind encouraging people to build a sense of responsibility to their country and to their fellow citizens by serving in the military as mandatory duty. Why? Too many flaming-hippy-homo just love to take a swing at me when I was back in active duty. They kinda forget who give them their freedom to become hippy in the first place.
James
10-23-2003, 12:21 AM
During World War Two, the population of the U.S. was something like 140 million people (I'm working from memory, so my numbers might be a little off). Between 1940 and 1945, something like 16 million Americans served in the military - more than 10% of the population. Think about that with today's numbers. Our population is around 280 million, twice what it was sixty years ago. Today, we would have a standing military of around 28 MILLION people if the proportion was the same. And what is our military strength today? 2 million with all active/reserve/NG? (If someone has an accurate number, please advise). Less than 1% of our population. It's amazing what they can accomplish.
James
10-23-2003, 12:25 AM
On the other hand, I don't mind encouraging people to build a sense of responsibility to their country and to their fellow citizens by serving in the military as mandatory duty. Why? Too many flaming-hippy-homo just love to take a swing at me when I was back in active duty. They kinda forget who give them their freedom to become hippy in the first place.
I agree to an extent, but I think of it more in terms of National Service. It would be interesting to see something that required HS grads to do 2 years or 18 months of work that serves the United States, be it military or civilian. Think of the WPA or CCC while FDR was president in the 1930s. That sort of thing might be a way for " people to build a sense of responsibility to their country and to their fellow citizens by serving".
Just a thought...
Ratamacue
10-23-2003, 12:26 AM
A good point James, but the fact is that we're not facing a World War today, nor is it likely that we will face one in the near future, not to mention that warfare has changed drastically since World War II. Also remember that our current military size is quite a bit larger than it was before Pearl Harbor.
Nawlins
10-23-2003, 01:03 AM
Please no. And I'm being completely selfish here, I admit it. Now that there are so many women in the military, there's really no way to start up a mandatory service without including them... which includes me... and my sisters, and my (future) daughters. No thanks.
And also for the reasons already mentioned... I agree, I think mandatory service would harm the military more than help.
Jack Mehoff
10-23-2003, 01:07 AM
Please no. And I'm being completely selfish here, I admit it. Now that there are so many women in the military, there's really no way to start up a mandatory service without including them... which includes me... and my sisters, and my (future) daughters. No thanks.
And also for the reasons already mentioned... I agree, I think mandatory service would harm the military more than help.
Come on!! I know you want to share foxhole with dirty mean men in uniform. Maybe a quick sponge bath ;)
Nawlins
10-23-2003, 01:09 AM
Come on!! I know you want to share foxhole with dirty mean men in uniform.
Um... ew. I have my own (clean) man in uniform, thank you very much.
And besides, I'm a self-proclaimed ninny, I don't think you'd want me on your team.
spyguy
10-23-2003, 02:04 AM
because i understand it's unlikely i think it would be interesting for a lot of people to get some experience being involved with the service. It just seems like too many college kids look down on the military, as far as a carrier option. I'm saying the military offers things you can't attain elsewhere, i just think that the travel and brief work with the miltary/DoD would give them some interesting insight before the rest of their professional lives. I'm not trying to exclude HS graduates but with that it seems like you'd have to take the "all or nothing" approach. which would be too difficult and the military blood would likely be diluted. it was a good question though. I've thought about it myself quite a few times.
Conscript armies are only good for defence. If you were expecting an invasion then having a large percentage of your population able to understand the military and how it works and know which end of a gun to point at the enemy is actually an advantage.
Not all conscript armies are crap... Israel has conscription the last time I looked and most of their members are highly motivated. The Swiss also have conscription and they seem to have few problems with that (well they are very patriotic and like guns, so that isn't much of a surprise is it?)
If the US was at risk of being invaded then conscription might make sense.
It isn't, so it doesn't.
StarvingStudent47
10-23-2003, 03:04 AM
There's a difference between having a draft during wartime (WWII, Vietnam) and having mandatory military service (Switzerland, Israel). The former setup makes sense for the USA, though only in certain situations. I'd say it was a success in WWII but a dramatic failure in Vietnam. The reasons for that would fill up a book. The latter setup definitely would NOT make sense. What would we even do with 28 million soldiers?! And even if we found make-work jobs for them all, the administrative costs would be obscenely high.
1)Hell ya!!
Because with conscripts you get people out of every layer of the population.
You get more intellect in the army to, because with volunteer army's people with bether education tend to avoid the army.
Goverments and populations of country's with conscript army's will think
longer before they go to war because there is not only one group of people whitch is involved. If a country goes to war every body should do there share and not just by paying taxes.
___________________________
The best weapon is the mind.
WARPIG
10-23-2003, 09:34 AM
Here's a thought. Other than having a conscript military.. why not reward volunteers with more than college money or enlistment bonuses? We already have the selective service.. why not step it up?
How about you can't get into college unless you are registered with the selective service?
heres another wild shot in the dark.
what if official US citizenship was granted at the age of 18? selective service was a major factor or even further a minimum enlistment with the reserve or national guard.
i know it is a stretch.. just thinking out loud. What if to become a US citizen you had to take this oath:
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT
I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER
ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE."
I generally agree with most of you.. our volunteer military is dedicated and professional, we have all made not just a choice but a moral commitment. I am a 3rd generation US Army NCO so my opinion is a little biased. My family has sacrificed for 3 generations for this country to not just remain free but to protect basic human rights for people in need all over the world. I guess I'd like to see other people pulling their weight too.
Deuterium
10-23-2003, 09:40 AM
1)Hell ya!!
Because with conscripts you get people out of every layer of the population.
You get more intellect in the army to, because with volunteer army's people with bether education tend to avoid the army.
Goverments and populations of country's with conscript army's will think
longer before they go to war because there is not only one group of people whitch is involved. If a country goes to war every body should do there share and not just by paying taxes.
___________________________
The best weapon is the mind.
Not true. The current military has the highest GT score averages and the highest level of college graduates than in any time in history.
GearGod
10-23-2003, 10:52 AM
NO - I would rather have people on my squad who signed up because they WANTED and DESIRED to be in Military not because they were forced to get into the military where their passion for the job isn't as high as a VOLUNTEER who specifically wants and desires to be in the military
Nawlins
10-23-2003, 10:55 AM
Not true. The current military has the highest GT score averages and the highest level of college graduates than in any time in history.
True, but isn't it still lower than officials would like them to be? If I'm not mistaken, isn't that where the whole "Army of One" campaign came from?
I wasn't saying that all conscript armies are crap... I'm sure there are some that are excellent. But, considering the size of the US and the number of people who seem to have anti-military sentiments, or are just not fit for service (like myself), I think the number of those people joining if they are forced to serve would be too high, and would bring down the level at which the military as a whole can operate. As far as I know, the countries that have conscript armies are generally small and highly motivated to defend themselves... I think that makes a big difference.
Tane, what would be the difference between Mandatory National and Military service? Do you mean serving the government for a couple years in any capacity vs. just the military?
NO - I would rather have people on my squad who signed up because they WANTED and DESIRED to be in Military not because they were forced to get into the military where their passion for the job isn't as high as a VOLUNTEER who specifically wants and desires to be in the military
I rather wouldn't have an airsofter as my squad leader ;)
jk mate :hug:
Tane, what would be the difference between Mandatory National and Military service? Do you mean serving the government for a couple years in any capacity vs. just the military?
non military service, for example, working in a hospital, so social service...
GearGod
10-23-2003, 11:24 AM
Do you also mean non-combat jobs like infantry that are closed to women?
Jack Mehoff
10-23-2003, 12:23 PM
Here's a thought. Other than having a conscript military.. why not reward volunteers with more than college money or enlistment bonuses? We already have the selective service.. why not step it up?
How about you can't get into college unless you are registered with the selective service?
heres another wild shot in the dark.
what if official US citizenship was granted at the age of 18? selective service was a major factor or even further a minimum enlistment with the reserve or national guard.
Actually, you are suppose to sign up for Selective Service System when you turn 18 year old and a male. There are punishments if you fail to do so such as prison, can't appy for any federal jobs, no financial aid or any aid from the government. I registered for SSS not that long ago.
WARPIG
10-23-2003, 04:04 PM
Your right Jack.. but I know what the Selective Service requirements are... I was being facetious.. Private colleges with rich kids don't even open a Selective Service envelope. Private colleges whom which rich kids that aren't American citizens don't even get a letter from the selective service.
It would never work.. and now that I see my thoughts outloud.. they seem pretty far fetched.
StarvingStudent47
10-23-2003, 06:07 PM
Nawlins, very simplified, yes to what you figured National Service is. Think WPA, CCC, TVA, and other New Deal agencies but in a modern context. Getting it to work makes it a bit more complicated. I had to write a paper on it a year or two ago, and I still think it's a pretty good idea. If you'd like, I can send PM it to you, post it here, or start a new post for it. Whatever works best for everyone here. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
While it seems like a good idea from a moral standpoint and a community standpoint, there is a big problems:
During the year/two years that the people work, are they paid?
*If so, where do we get the money for 30 million new federal employees? That's a LOT of money, plus huge administrative overhead...
*If not, are we really going to force citizens to work for the federal government without compensation? Sounds more like Egypt of the Pharoahs than Jeffersonian Democracy to me...
*If so, where do we get the money for 30 million new federal employees? That's a LOT of money, plus huge administrative overhead...
well woopee maybe you should put an end to all the tax cuts...but...that aint gonna happen with certain ppl in office :roll:
11F5S
10-23-2003, 06:22 PM
non military service, for example, working in a hospital, so social service...
I don't know where you come from but in the US the government doesn't operate very many hospitals outside of the Military and Veterans Medical Centers.
Our hospital system is private enterprise based not government run.
Our government employs civilian workers not government conscripts, but I guess you are just too young to understand that concept. :lol:
Mandantory military service is something that would provide nothing to the country save for running the the treasury into bankruptcy.
Ratamacue
10-23-2003, 06:26 PM
I think what they mean by working at hospitals and such is Public Service, not necessarily under the direction of the government.
11F5S
10-23-2003, 08:07 PM
Well then working as a butcher, a baker or candlestick maker would have to be considered public service. How about cab drivers, garbagemen, escorts, hookers, or strippers they all provide public services.
Deuterium
10-23-2003, 10:06 PM
I volunteer to be on the oversight committee for stripper/hooker selection!!!
Yep. That is almost always the case in the U.S. with public and private institutions. Security is a joke in this country. It never changes. The airlines stuck their collective heads up their arses and, wa la, 9/11 was the result. Then the government pays the victim's families to keep the airlines from getting sued. Our tax dollars are working to keep the idiots that run those companies from taking any real heat. "America is the greatest country in the world!" Yeah, that's right. The greatest at mismanagement.
ChuckThunder
10-24-2003, 06:05 PM
1)Hell ya!!
2)Hell no!! Are you out of your mind?
3)Yes, IF the **** hit the fan like during 'Nam, Korea, WW2, etc.
4)I don't live there, therefore i don't care
IMO, military mandatory is not necessary unless we are deeply involved in conflicts like 'Nam, Korea, WW2. Beside, conscripted military sucks anyway. I rather fight along side someone who volunteer to share my foxhole. So i would pick #3
I think it should be like the system of government that was in Starship Troopers. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do (yes, there was a book and it came before the movie) In Starship Troopers you can only be a citizen (vote) if you are in the military. :D
Jack Mehoff
10-24-2003, 06:31 PM
1)Hell ya!!
2)Hell no!! Are you out of your mind?
3)Yes, IF the **** hit the fan like during 'Nam, Korea, WW2, etc.
4)I don't live there, therefore i don't care
IMO, military mandatory is not necessary unless we are deeply involved in conflicts like 'Nam, Korea, WW2. Beside, conscripted military sucks anyway. I rather fight along side someone who volunteer to share my foxhole. So i would pick #3
I think it should be like the system of government that was in Starship Troopers. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do (yes, there was a book and it came before the movie) In Starship Troopers you can only be a citizen (vote) if you are in the military. :D
Is that mean I can have *** with another female trooper in the field? :D
11F5S
10-24-2003, 06:34 PM
Yep. That is almost always the case in the U.S. with public and private institutions. Security is a joke in this country. It never changes. The airlines stuck their collective heads up their arses and, wa la, 9/11 was the result. Then the government pays the victim's families to keep the airlines from getting sued. Our tax dollars are working to keep the idiots that run those companies from taking any real heat. "America is the greatest country in the world!" Yeah, that's right. The greatest at mismanagement.
The root of the problem is deeply imbedded in federal potting soil not in the airlines garden. We do not get enough bang for the buck from our federal agencies.
California Joe
10-24-2003, 06:53 PM
I remember reading an old DoD publication about the effects of the changing society versus soldiers readiness for combat. Things like the level of marksmanship, shot's fired to kill ratio, declining significantly after the 1st WW, till it was something like 150,000 rounds fired per kill in Vietnam. They blamed the fact that boys in this country were no longer growing up on farms and in rural areas where they were taught to hunt and learned fieldcraft from an early age. Familiarity with firearms was almost non existent by the late 60's except in recruits from the rural South and upper New England like Maine and Vermont, and a few pockets out West.
11F5S
10-24-2003, 07:09 PM
Do you think that the increasing use of automatic weapons might have had anything to do with the number of rounds fired?
I served with many city slickers who were far better in the woods than some farmboys. Statistical studies are done by bean counters not shooters.
Anzac
10-24-2003, 07:14 PM
"I don't live there, therefore i don't care"
But i can tell you some things about my time in the Army.
Sweden got "mandatory" military or civilian defence service for all men.
Those who feel they cant use weapons against an enemy become firemen or something other, that is useful to society in case of war.
I was a squadleader in the artillery, mostly staff and close defense duty.
and i can tell you that having a drafted squad is not a good thing. most of my men would rather be home working real jobs or educating themselfs instead of sitting out in the forrest defending a fictional staff area against a fictional enemy. The times i was out on special assignments with other squadleaders the thing was reversed, most of them was higly motivated and thougt it was a good fun thing.
So my conclution for sweden is: sweden would be better of with a profesional army.
And i think its the same for almost all coutrys in the world.
California Joe
10-24-2003, 07:21 PM
Yes, I'm sure pray and spray had something to do with that. Just siting an article I read pal. Of course statistics are compiled by statisticians, that's what they do. I'm sure your personal opinions are based on your observations which surely have merit but are not exactly an all encompassing study on the subject. Just another angle to consider when talking about mandatory service. I signed up for the draft when I was 16, as I shall be 41 in December reinstituting it really doesn't effect me one way or another.
11F5S
10-24-2003, 08:06 PM
IMO, Mandantory service would be the biggest waste of money and resources that the US has ever seen.
We still have the ability to induct people into the military via the Selective Service System in the time of need. If and when that time comes they will use it.
How did the bean counters know how many rounds passed through weapons aimed in the direction of enemy forces?
California Joe
10-24-2003, 08:08 PM
I agree.
I don't know pal. I'm guessing they based it on ammo expended versus enemy killed. We both know those are innacurate. Didn't say I wrote the article. The Army did.
Is it hard operating in combat with that bigass chip on your shoulder without drawing enemy fire?
ChuckThunder
10-24-2003, 08:18 PM
1)Hell ya!!
2)Hell no!! Are you out of your mind?
3)Yes, IF the **** hit the fan like during 'Nam, Korea, WW2, etc.
4)I don't live there, therefore i don't care
IMO, military mandatory is not necessary unless we are deeply involved in conflicts like 'Nam, Korea, WW2. Beside, conscripted military sucks anyway. I rather fight along side someone who volunteer to share my foxhole. So i would pick #3
I think it should be like the system of government that was in Starship Troopers. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do (yes, there was a book and it came before the movie) In Starship Troopers you can only be a citizen (vote) if you are in the military. :D
Is that mean I can have *** with another female trooper in the field? :D
Hah! Well, that was in the movie... but since you live in Pimp City, United States of Pimp it shouldn't be a problem. :lol:
Dennis G
10-24-2003, 08:33 PM
I have to very good quotes by Robert Heinlein about conscription
There is an old picture of a people traveling by sleigh through deep woods--pursued by wolves. Every now and then they grab one of their number and toss him to the wolves. That's conscription even if you call it selective service and pretty it up with USOs and veterans' benefits--it's tossing a minority to the wolves while the rest go on with that single-minded pursuit of the three-car garage, the swimming pool, and the safe & secure retirement benefits.
I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!
A lot of good quotes from this man.
http://www.quotableheinlein.com/html/home.html
About what ChuckThunder was saying is a system like this would not be that bad you should red the book and understand the philosophy behind this book do some hard research over the internet and you can see some good thing from this don’t just label it as fascist because its really not. U.S. War collages used it as required reading. The book was also very popular in Vietnam It was very accurate to American boys going into combat. The book reads like biting attack on humanists, social scientist, and people who consider themselves liberal anybody that read this book learns that Heinlein has no care with any of those sissy ideas. People respond best to military-style justice and corporal punishment, asserts Heinlein. This is a simple lesson every boy who’s ever raised a dog learns. A dog needs a smart rap on the nose to keep it from soiling the carpet. The universe works on a Darwinian paradigm and so does life. Its all biology in one form or another, from the housebreaking of a boys puppy to the explanation of why war must occur between nations and why nations must compete for dominance or die
What a nightmare idea for our politically correct times: Conflict between people & Nations is inherent in nature. Something will dominate, Heinlein says it should be us.
11F5S
10-24-2003, 09:46 PM
Is it hard operating in combat with that bigass chip on your shoulder without drawing enemy fire?
How you equate my asking a question ("How did the bean counters know how many rounds passed through weapons aimed in the direction of enemy forces?") with carrying a chip on the shoulder sure beats the hell out of me.
You must be using fuzzy math.
Have a nice day.
I remember reading an old DoD publication about the effects of the changing society versus soldiers readiness for combat. Things like the level of marksmanship, shot's fired to kill ratio, declining significantly after the 1st WW, till it was something like 150,000 rounds fired per kill in Vietnam. They blamed the fact that boys in this country were no longer growing up on farms and in rural areas where they were taught to hunt and learned fieldcraft from an early age. Familiarity with firearms was almost non existent by the late 60's except in recruits from the rural South and upper New England like Maine and Vermont, and a few pockets out West.
i grew up with guns in my house, all mine. the problem isnt where you grew up, but rather in technique. some 'farm boys' as we are so affectionately called, develop bad habits from repetative bad technique and it can be hard to get rid of. where as you take a city kid, who has never held a gun, and he picks it up the rite way the first time and does it that way every time cuz thats all he knows. my uncle taught me proper technique b4 i ever fired a shot. he was in vietnam so he knew what he was doing...
California Joe
10-24-2003, 10:50 PM
You just seem really cranky. No offense. I just picture Don Zimmer when I read your posts.
California Joe
10-24-2003, 10:57 PM
I understand what you mean GLax, you can't have a bunch of jokers telling the DI, this is how I shoot squirrels back home like Gunny Hathcock...... ;)
I understand what you mean GLax, you can't have a bunch of jokers telling the DI, this is how I shoot squirrels back home like Gunny Hathcock...... ;)
haha, yes, very true
Durandal
10-29-2003, 02:36 PM
Without having read any of the other responses...
Conscripted Military Bad...
All volunteer/Professional Military Good.
I know it is an over simplification, but that is where I stand. Now, if you want to allow only those people that have volunteered for military or civil service a vote in our American culture then we might have a good discussion going.
Fargin
10-29-2003, 02:45 PM
Conscripted Military Bad...
I got drafted and ended up as a designated marksman.
P.S. I sucked as a soldier and was a worse shot. I think one is better off with a volunteer and professional army.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.