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.
It’s a terrible idea. Isn’t the military a strong enough institution in the US as it is? What right does the government have to rob years from the lives of their youth by having them go play soldier, especially in times of peace?
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
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.
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.
I would, of course, discourage it. The idea of nation states as-is is, due to how they conflict with principles of personhood, already questionable, something I say without being a proper anarchist. To be forced to fight and often die for it, especially if the war or military isn’t democratically ordained or if there was no guarantee you wouldn’t return to normal society later only to still find your voice in it limited and your opportunities in life challenged, makes it magnitudes less arguable. You might call this an extremely unpopular opinion here, but I’d go so far as to say there are few things more noble than a deserter.
Mandatory military service doesn’t generally mean being sent to conflict zones. This is done by active military members, not conscripts.
A friend of mine got sent to a conflict zone (Kosovo) during his mandatory service. Sure, nothing much happened, but it could’ve.
Do u know about the Vietnam war?
That was a draft. USA has never had a concription system.
how if guns would be prevalent
hahahaha ‘would’ hahahhahhah. hilarious.a huge contigent of domestic terrorism in the unites 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.
There are talks about it in Germamy, but afaik with an option to refuse the service at the arms and help in the social sector instead.
If I’d be forced into a military environment I’d probably kill myself the first time I see a weapon.
If a country gets away with not having a mandatory military service, then it sholdn’t have one. Forcing people (usually just men) to spend a substancial amount of time in something, they might have zero motivation to, is unjust.
That being said, I absolutely support the fact that we do have a conscription based army here in Finland. There simply is an existential imperative for an army that is wastly larger than what could be achieved with volunteers. Maybe an initial fighting force could be mustered, but we would have problems refreshing it throug years of heavy attritional combat. Like Ukraine could most likely never maintain a fighting force through volunteer only.
That being said there is an option of civilian service here in Finland. I hold no grudge against anyone choosing that option. I agree that the system is fundamentally injust. I just see no alternative.
What does the conscription look like in daily life? Do people just naturally transition from military life to civilian life, same as going from school to working?
In my day you would start either in July or January. I wanted to go get it over with straight after secondary school in July They pushed my start date to January, because everyone wants to start in the summer between classes.
So I went to university for a year and got a six month exemption because studies. Then I did my conscription for one year and straight back to year 2 of uni. It worked out nicely time-wise, and I didn’t have to think about a summer job those two summers.
After two years of studies I was in a better place to get relevant work, anyway.
I’d prefer it be more of a mandatory civil service than actual military. If that includes basic weapons training that’s ok with me.
Singapore does this too and you see them everywhere, with their rifle (ammo less).
I don’t think it would have any impact on gun violence though.
That would actually be pretty great. Everyone having some experience with having to deal with the hassles and pains of common civil service would be a wonderful eye-opener.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 lifes.
(and many countries do allow that as an alternative e.g. for conscientious objectors)
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?
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 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.
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
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.
I think compulsory retail service would fix society.
Amazingly, I’m not a big fan of slavery.
I am pro mandatory military service, but not as it is done.
Everyone must serve. No getting out of it, but one may delay service by a short period while deathly ill or pregnant.
The military must accommodate all and their families.
Service reoccures every 10 years for 1 year.
Senator, President, judge? Too bad.
Old? You will be accommodated and your experience valued.
About to die but out of delay? Please accept the best medical care possible. Also, your friends and family can visit.
Everyone benefits from strong defense, so everyone must contrubute.
What about disabled people?
The military must accommodate all and their families.
Military will clearly provide safe tasks, health care, and pay.
Everyone benefits from strong defense, so everyone must contrubute.
I’ll give you a little bit of wiggle room here because you’re probably inexperienced with this stuff, but this sentence is massively incorrect.
“Everyone benefits from food so everyone must pay for the food they eat”
“Everyone benifits from housing so everyone must pay for the housing they live in”
“Everyone benefits from police so everyone must pay taxes no matter if they have a job or not”
I am pro mandatory military service
I mean… I disagree with you, but…
Senator, President, judge? Too bad.
I agree with this part 😆
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 :(
It is abuse and violation of person’s freedom and dignity. It (and people supporting it) should be fought by any means necessary.
How about taxes going to a military? Or is it just being forced to directly do morally abhorrent things?
Or is it just being forced to directly do morally abhorrent things?
Not just “morally abhorrent things”, any forced labor is wrong.
Taxation isn’t because there’s a middle man between your labor and the government?
Well, you raise a valid point, it’s also bad of course.
It’s just that “forcing you to do a thing (a physical labor) you do not want to do” and “forcing you to give up a part of your salary” are different things.
Completely fucked up.
Join the military, die for your (oil) billionairs! Its an honor!
