this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
126 points (97.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27978 readers
903 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (5 children)

I'm not for it but if mandatory service were a thing the population would be more hesitant to go to war knowing their flesh and blood might be included

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Ciralinde@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 12 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Mandatory training - Yes
Mandatory service - No

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.

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

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Compare Switzerland. Everyone after secondary school gets a year learning how to work as a team and practice interdependence.

Seems like it's working really well for them, as they have more guns per capita and almost zero mass shootings. Maybe that's the thing they're doing right?

Personally I don't have an issue with it as it's the only chance I and other poor kids had for entering college.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

Switzerland was an inspiration for much of the american laws I believe. The second amendment used to say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". The American got rid of the militia (the training) and kept the guns, now we have chaos.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I had the idea that mass shootings were more of a cultural phenomenon exacerbated by the media. I mean, we don't have them in my country either. And although some older people have gone through compulsory military training, it's been slowly rescinded for the younger generations so it makes me wonder if that has any effect on people's willingness to go on shooting sprees.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I'm fine with mandatory military service for a country that treats its military in a sane way and would never deploy conscripts outside of a last resort due to existential threat to the homeland. For most countries mandatory military service is just spending a few years learning to be a guardsman and learning a trade and serving your country and community in some substantive way. It should never involve getting anywhere near combat for anyone that didn't volunteer.

In the USA? Hell to the no, even before Trump.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 30p87@feddit.org 9 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

I am absolutely against it. You cannot force a person to give 100% of their effort. So if a person doesn’t wanna be there. They’re not going to put forward 100%. Wanna guess who picks up the rest.? Yeah that’s right their teammates. Now their teammates are pissed off because they’re doing extra work. That destroys morale . It doesn’t matter what type of job they have whether it’s infantry or office based or whatever the end result is the same.

It’s one of the reasons why when you enlist when you’re going through training, it really is not that hard to get out of training. During the Vietnam era you pretty much had to throw yourself down a flight of stairs and break your leg or something. Today, yeah it’s significantly easier to leave.

Because the mentality is, if you don’t wanna be there then just go home.

Special operations takes it to the next level they have (for example with the seals) a bell that you ring. Literally just walk up ring the bell and you’re done.

I have met a few vets, but not very many people who served who think military should be mandatory. The vast majority of people have served say : no service should not be mandatory. At least the ones that I’ve met.

I have met a fair number civilians who thinks military service should be mandatory though.

[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Do you think the national guard isn't a component of the military?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 4 days ago

Fuck that noise.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Mandatory paid service with military as an OPTION, maybe. I'd like kids to get work right out of high school, have a year before college or whatever to make some money and do something different.

Literally always the military? No way. And certainly nothing that doesn't come with a paycheck. It just sucks now that the only way to get scholarships for college is right out of high school, something needs to interrupt that.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Mandatory social work sounds great. I'd love to spend a year working in the forest service, or even on city cleanup. Paid of course. But it builds love for your neighbors and country to help your community.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Its slavery no matter how you slice it.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I’m a bit ambivalent: I would have hated it, and there’s no immediate benefit. I’m also well past the point of being affected, so yes, you should have compulsory service.

Compulsory service can’t create an effective military force, but what it can do is widespread experience with discipline, working together, basic weapons familiarity. There are many emergencies where having this widespread experience might be useful, over a herd of random citizens in an unruly mob. Heck, make it part of national guard or have fema run it.

For the military, you might get a head start on getting people ready, should you ever have to call them up. In recent decades we always assumed war is fast and you can only use what you start with, but Ukraine demonstrate there can still be protracted wars.

But I’m picturing more of an organized force to help in a large flood or fire for example. Or it helps to have some sort of goal, so build it as a modern WPA.

[–] original_reader@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

It ignores that people have consciences and forces such ones into violent behavior. That violates human freedom and dignity.

Some countries have implemented some sort of civilian service. Others just ignore the wishes of their citizens. You decide the moral path here.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 4 points 4 days ago

Professional army.

Support and train a reserve army of those willing. Citizens that could support the country and other citizens in the case of an invasion. Some countries do that. I like to think of those.

Only if otherwise necessary general service. E.g. active invasion you can't otherwise oppose, or you can't establish a minimum reserve.

[–] Sorolainen@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Object@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Did mandatory service, and no, it shouldn't be a thing. It's not that you would be fighting in the frontline that it sucks (it is a possibility, but doubt it would happen any time soon), it's that you can't do much during that period that makes it annoying, and you're paid below min wage for it. It also imposes restrictions on you before you complete your service in case you try to avoid it. You also do it during the 20s, and that's just a waste of time.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

We could use this, but after basic the year is spent in the country in communities doing public works. There also need to be zero loopholes, zero outs. People from all over the country from all walks of life and all classes live and work together. There was a brief benefit after WWII when men and women came home from service having worked and lived with people from all over the country. Farm boys with no education fought side by side with men who had been to ivy league schools. There was a net benefit to it.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›