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.
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.
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.
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
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 :(
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.
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)
I am for it only because it helps avoid politicization of the armed forces. When the military self-selects recruits, you risk the organization biasing towards people with a particular worldview. It intrinsicially also leads to a military comprised of people who love the idea of being a “military person”.
It’s much more reassuring knowing your armed forces, the people with the big guns, are your neighbors, rather than strangers with a particular ideology or biased loyalties.
It’s much more reassuring knowing your armed forces, the people with the big guns, are your neighbors, rather than strangers with a particular ideology or biased loyalties.
How about compulsory national guard service?
Do you think the national guard isn’t a component of the military?
That is correct. The National Guard is (part of) the militia, not the military. 10 USC 246.
The Military consists of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and now the Space Force. The “Armed Services” includes the above, plus the Coast Guard and the National Guard.
The National Guard consists of state-level units operating under the authority of the state’s governor. They can be called forth to federal service. They could, arguably, be considered part of the military when called forth. But generally speaking, no, the National Guard is not a component of the military.
The problem with your reasoning is that you can (and many people have) been given duty outside the United States of America when directed by the Federal Government (POTUS). So while I can appreciate you making the distinction, for the purposes of this discussion I’m not sure just how relevant that distinction is.
Joining the military, you would expect to be living separate and apart from the local communities. You’ll spend a year or two at one posting, before being transferred to another, and another, and another. You won’t expect to set down roots in the local community. The people you are serving with will be constantly rotating in and out of your current unit on similar schedules; you can expect any friendships you form to last a few months, before you or they are transferred again.
Joining the National Guard, you will be serving primarily in your home state, at the call of your own governor. You’ll spend your entire career in your own community, serving with other people in that same community. Even when you deploy, you are deploying with people you’ve known your whole career, if not your whole life: your friends and neighbors.
The militia is not the military.
Joining the military, you would expect to be living separate and apart from the local communities.<<
As someone who joined the military, that’s not really how that works and if you’re getting your information from memes and content creators, perhaps it might be a better idea not to continue this conversation because I really don’t want to have to go into detail about how flawed that first sentence is, let alone the rest of it.
I served in the military from '99 through '05.
In California, the only military members I knew of who had California drivers licenses were people who had grown up in California. Nobody else in considered themselves a “resident” of California.
We were briefed on how to obtain absentee ballots from our home states, because most of us didn’t qualify as residents at our post.
We were advised to file taxes in our home states, not the states where we were living and working.
The parking lots on base had more out-of-state license plates than in-state.
Military members and their dependents are guests of the local community. Visitors. Tourists. Not locals. We aren’t in their communities long enough to become locals.
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.
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.
