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.

  • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 小时前

    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.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 小时前

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 小时前

      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.

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 小时前

    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.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 小时前

    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.

  • Skunk@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 小时前

    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?

  • Einar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 小时前

    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.

  • justhach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 小时前

    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.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 小时前

      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.

    • hinterlufer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 小时前

      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.

        • hinterlufer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 小时前

          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.

    • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 小时前

      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.

    • seven_phone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 小时前

      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.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 小时前

      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)

  • warm@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 小时前

    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.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 小时前

    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.

  • flamingo_pinyata
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 小时前

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 小时前

      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.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 小时前

        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.

    • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 小时前

      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”?

      • flamingo_pinyata
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 小时前

        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…

  • Bezier@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 小时前

    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.

    • helloworld55@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 小时前

      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

      • Bezier@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 小时前

        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.

      • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 小时前

        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.