[The Black Knight]

This is a spinoff thread from the main Trump thread since I didn't want to derail things there.

Some of the main arguments FOR mandatory military service are:

1. Will toughen up young men.

2. Provide some basic life skills.

3. Provide sense of accomplishment, duty, confidence, etc.

4. Provide basic weapons training/military understanding to general populace; which would be useful in the event of a war,
crisis, or invasion.

5. Give everyone some skin in the game with regards to foreign conflicts and make people think twice about starting dubious engagements.

Some of main arguments AGAINST mandatory military service are:

1. Goes against some principles of freedom of choice in how to live one's life that are very USA-centric. The government forcing a major life change against the will of an individual, one that could jeopardize the life of said individual is in the eyes of many, a serious abuse of governmental authority.

2. The US military doesn't have a good track record of pursuing conflicts that are truly in the best interest of the US and are more often in the best interest of some politicians and the military industrial complex. Why should one have to die or even risk dying for something that has nothing to do with defending the country?

3. Malcontents/non-volunteers are a danger to themselves, the unit, and the mission. Imagine having a bunch of SJW types releasing intelligence files compromising your position to make a political statement (somewhat like Private Manning/Wikileaks) or actually having to be in a direct combat situation with someone who mentally isn't in the game or fit to be there?

4. The military really doesn't need a large fighting force like previous generations. Large scale ground combat operations between nations is not really a thing anymore (although it could be in the future). The modern enemy (Islamic radical terrorists) can be more efficiently handled with spec ops teams, drones, cutting off financial resources, electronic warfare/surveillance, and human intelligence.

My thoughts:

As an ex-military combat arms guy, I can see and understand very well both sides of the argument but I'm largely against mandatory military service since I think the negatives FAR out way any potential positives.

1. I don't give a shit about toughing up young men at the expense of compromising my life and the mission. There are other ways to toughen someone up that don't involve my ass on the line. The shit is nerve-wreaking as it is having dumb ass butterbars (LT's) right out of college or the academy. These LT's who have complete legal authority over you in a combat situation and due to an combination of inexperience, arrogance, and youth can very likely get you killed. Tell them fuck you to a bad decision and you can get arrested and brought up on charges.

But now I have to worry about the guys under me too or even more stupid college grads trying to live out their Call of Duty fantasies? Fuckin Christ almighty. I ain't dying for that bullshit.

2. Funding mandatory service would NOT be remotely cheap. To provide training, pay, and benefits to 100-200+ million people for a few years just so they can ultimately fuck off doing something else for the next 40 years would be a massive waste of limited resources. We had enough problems getting the goddman proper fucking clothing and other gear needed for the mission due to lack of funding/bureaucracy as it was. The US is in massive debt as it is and the military is grossly inefficient in how it spends money.

3. The military life can be VERY exhausting at times, knowing that you are government property and have no control over your life. That lifestyle wears down many people and breaks some folks who volunteer for it as it is. Having everyone go through it would be a nightmare for all parties involved to manage.

A compromise:

I'd be down for all politicians who vote for a war being force to give up a son or daughter and putting them in a front line unit as an enlisted truck supply driver.

Why truck supply driver? Because its a skill virtually all adults have already (no training required), can be filled quickly by any age adult, minimal risk to other people in the unit, and it gives them real exposure to getting killed with very little way to defend themselves (meaning the shit politician better fund my fucking team with the people and gear I need or its bye bye Mr. Politician Kid). I'd be down for that type of mandatory military service right now.

We would probably never have another stupid war ever again.

(If you read this in the first 20-30 minutes after I posted it by the way, I cleaned up the grammar a bit so it isn't a total clusterfuck anymore like it initially was. That's my bad; I need to proofread more before hitting the post button!)

[Teutatis]

I was actually thinking of creating a thread about this as well and like you I can see both the pros and cons and while when I was younger I was definitely in the "against" team now as I get older I'm leaning more towards the "for" team.

I think everyone should at least do one year of mandatory service and then they would be free to either stay or leave.

[Paracelsus]

As background reading, since I draw a fair amount of my views in support of a draft from it, here's John T. Reed's arguments in favour of a draft:

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s...tary-draft

Be warned, it's a very long read and some of it takes some digestion. A couple of Reed's other articles branch off it as well.

That aside, I think it's important to recognise there is an important distinction between mandatory military service and provisions for a draft. One compels everyone to serve in their youth -- which I agree is a wasteful exercise except in a full-blown, all-out conventional war in which having more soldiers is generally the measure of who wins -- but the other leaves everyone with the possibility of having to serve at some point if the defence of the country requires your particular expertise and skills. Especially at higher ranks, that expertise and skill often comes down to logistical and/or organisational ability -- skills that the private sector has in abundance.

The only specific comment I wanted to make in response to Black Knight -- and it is not a criticism, merely a point to consider -- relates to his first objection to the draft, on principled grounds:

Quote:

1. Goes against some principles of freedom of choice in how to live one's life that are very USA-centric. The government forcing a major life change against the will of an individual, one that could jeopardize the life of said individual is in the eyes of many, a serious abuse of governmental authority.

Another principle cuts across this. It is the principle that freedom must be guarded. Jefferson's defence of the right to bear arms speaks of this obligation in a domestic capacity, against the citizen's government; but it's a principle that applies equally to external threats to the citizen's nation. As Thomas Paine put it: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself."

In Australia there are any number of monuments to servicemen killed in battle. At least from those dating back to World War One, this obligation is reflected in a phrase which turns up regularly on those monuments: "They deserve freedom only those who are prepared to defend it."

I'm not saying people need to be happy about a draft. It can be compared to taking turns removing garbage: it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it, and the fairest way of distributing that dirty job is to make people take turns at it. And above all it puts a Damoclean sword above the people who can send your sons and (maybe) daughters to war: politicians.

[TheFinalEpic]

I don't think too many men can justify fighting for a country nowadays. I'm over here figuring out ways to not pay income tax here, let alone serving for our military.

[Razgriz]

In times gone by I probably would have said yes, but that was when I firmly believed the military was still a bastion of masculinity. I'm this day and age it is becoming yet another institution for the left and SJWs to push their agenda. forcing people into it now with the white guilt courses and putting women in Colby roles even wen there is overheon evidence not to makes me think it would turn out like the push high schools had to send everyone to college. Look where that got us.

[Off The Reservation]

It's slavery, even if temporary.

[philosophical_recovery]

No.

I still don't see a reason for a well-armed populace, that is mostly separated by oceans from its greatest enemies, to have a standing army. Build walls on both borders and only let in people that respect liberty, free enterprise, and not communist subversives. The U.S. has failed at this and has been rotting from the inside out. Diana West covered this very well in American Betrayal.

I'm a fan of unrestricted weaponry for citizens with a minimal government.

The 20th century should be a lesson, for everyone, on what happens when the government has all the guns. Germany. Ukraine. Russia. I'm neglecting more.

Now, we aren't fighting a hot war locally, but having a standing military driven by corporate welfare lobbyists such as Lockheed, Northrup, etc. has screwed up the economy. The cost of the F-22 and F-35, only two airframe platforms, has required the commitment of over 2 trillion USD in resources.

Just imagine what kind of cool shit we could have built with that money if it wasn't robbed from us to line the pockets of those incompetent cocksuckers.

If you've worked in a big corporation, or have associated with the above, you know what I'm talking about. The men of the '10s-60's had shit figured out with engineering. Modern corporations can't engineer their way out of a paper bag, except for SpaceX and a handful of others. But, Lockheed and Northrup are misappropriating trillions from the economy, keeping competence from rising to the top.

Corporate cuckoldry is all you end up with.

[Paracelsus]

(03-24-2016 10:55 PM)offthereservation Wrote:  

It's slavery, even if temporary.

Then jury duty, too, is slavery. Civic duties are not slavery by any stretch of the imagination.

[puckerman]

In Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote: "Every able bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia.... The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service." The people were the military, and this largely formed the foundation of a free society that was ready and willing to defend itself. This is currently the Swiss model.

I've wrestled with this issue a lot myself. If we ever do go back to military service for all, we need to be a country in which the military is used only to defend America. That means not going into foreign countries, not supporting dictators, not getting involved in civil wars, not getting involved in other wars, and not bending over and taking it up the ass whenever Israel says so. With so many traitors in Congress, a mandatory military service would bring about revolts and worse.

I might also add that we could require everyone to serve in the police for a year or two. We would also rotate the job of police officer, so it would never be a career.

[porscheguy]

Like many people, when I was younger I was against it. Now that I'm older, I think it would have been a great benefit to me. I don't think it would be wasteful if done properly.

You can argue that it isn't the state's job to turn boys into men, but if their single mother's can't do it, they need to learn somewhere. In addition, I think it can build social cohesion which is something sorely lacking in our world today. Too many people come of age thinking the world revolves around them. When you take a kid, move him 1000 miles from home, remove his clothes and shave his head, and then tell him he can't run and cry to his mommy, he'll grow a pair, and soon realize that he must be an active participant.

At 18, 2 years seem like forever. In reality, two years is nothing. Many countries in the rest of the world do it.

[philosophical_recovery]

(03-24-2016 11:23 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

In Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote: "Every able bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia.... The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service." The people were the military, and this largely formed the foundation of a free society that was ready and willing to defend itself. This is currently the Swiss model.

I've wrestled with this issue a lot myself. If we ever do go back to military service for all, we need to be a country in which the military is used only to defend America. That means not going into foreign countries, not supporting dictators, not getting involved in civil wars, not getting involved in other wars, and not bending over and taking it up the ass whenever Israel says so. With so many traitors in Congress, a mandatory military service would bring about revolts and worse.

I might also add that we could require everyone to serve in the police for a year or two. We would also rotate the job of police officer, so it would never be a career.

I like the idea of able-bodied men being trained, and going through the rites of passage such as shooting a rifle, shooting a pistol, hunting (which I never have done), etc. I'm curious about the Jefferson quote, because I'm rusty on history of that era and it's not clear to me if that was an expected or an actual enforced enrollment.

As for police, it doesn't seem necessary, nor moral. One of the biggest issues that the U.S. has is that the most able-bodied men are required to sit in high school and college, non-productively, and sap the HIGH ENERGY and balls out of the economy. 18 year old men don't have a lot to lose, are huge risk takers, and are hard to control. They are absolutely amazing at solving problems through brute force or creativity, and benefit greatly from mentors. Forcing them all through dull routines like police work, at their most useful and growing moments, would stifle the next generation. And, a huge police force where every male of that generation is participating would require the vast majority of that work to be dull.

Boys growing into men need responsibility. It doesn't need to be military. Some are great at this. Others are more apt in other vocations. Regardless, responsibility and taking flight from the nest should be encouraged. As should self defense. Shooting guns and self defense are so damn fun that I don't think that a decently sized military or police force will ever be starved of volunteers. Unless the nation is full of cucks paying for parasite babies. Like the current West. However, this is going to be temporary as it is an unstable point in civilization.

[Off The Reservation]

(03-24-2016 11:20 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:55 PM)offthereservation Wrote:  

It's slavery, even if temporary.

Then jury duty, too, is slavery. Civic duties are not slavery by any stretch of the imagination.

That comparison was not thought out. When you serve on jury duty you do not give up your freedom. You serve your day or days, and you determine the outcome along with your jurors. You are put in a position above the government, not as it's human bulldozer. As a juror you hold democracy and fairness in your hands and you serve justice, not society.

If you are either drafted or must do mandatory service for one or two years even in peacetime you cannot decide with your mates that you will skip the war, or nullify the validity of the fight. You cannot free a man who has been falsely accused nor do you hold any responsibility to convict a criminal.

To compare the democratic force that keep the government's power in check and equate it with forced slavery that may result in having to kill or being killed against ones will requires the same cognitive dissonance that keeps those SJW's and their brutal dictator friends in power.

[puckerman]

(03-24-2016 11:36 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

the U.S. has is that the most able-bodied men are required to sit in high school and college, non-productively, and sap the HIGH ENERGY and balls out of the economy. 18 year old men don't have a lot to lose, are huge risk takers, and are hard to control. They are absolutely amazing at solving problems through brute force or creativity, and benefit greatly from mentors. Forcing them all through dull routines like police work, at their most useful and growing moments, would stifle the next generation.

Boys growing into men need responsibility. It doesn't need to be military. Some are great at this. Others are more apt in other vocations. Regardless, responsibility and taking flight from the nest should be encouraged. As should self defense. Shooting guns and self defense are so damn fun that I don't think that a decently sized military or police force will ever be starved of volunteers. Unless the nation is full of cucks paying for parasite babies. Like the current West. However, this is going to be temporary as it is an unstable point in civilization.

The fundamental problem is that modern society has basically extended childhood. In "primitive societies," you are considered an adult when you are old enough to make a baby. That's early to mid teens.

Kids would all be better off going out and learning trades, doing internships and apprenticeships. They would gain great experience, feel connected to the world, and be hugely productive.

Going back to the time of Jefferson, Andrew Jackson was in the military at the age of 13. He was an orphan at 14 and had lost his older brothers, too.

[Paracelsus]

(03-24-2016 11:38 PM)offthereservation Wrote:  

To compare the democratic force that keep the government's power in check and equate it with forced slavery that may result in having to kill or being killed against ones will requires the same cognitive dissonance that keeps those SJW's and their brutal dictator friends in power.

To compare military service under a draft with slavery is an exercise in hyperbole. Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property, to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement. While a person is a slave, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave's labour, without any remuneration. The rights and protection of the slave may be regulated by laws and customs in a particular time and place, and a person may become a slave from the time of their capture, purchase or birth.

Nobody would call service under a draft a period of slavery. And your analysis of jury duty ignores that if you don't show up you can be fined; you are not free to leave once a jury is empanelled and even less able to leave once a jury commences its deliberations, so your freedom is, indeed, taken away from you. You are still bound by a set of rules in coming to that verdict - no outside information permitted, no discussion of the case with family and friends. You are able to nullify a verdict, but you do so only in secret - a jurymember openly declaring to a court that he does not believe in the law with which a person is charged will be excused from duty. Are you suggesting that following orders is itself slavery?

[hedonist]

I think a better thing would be in schools let children watch this so they know who is starting the wars.

Then ask them if they want to die so that people like this


can sit at home and spit on you when (or if) you come back.

[Vainikka]

I agree with the black knight, mandatory service is not so good idea.

My own thoughts: (i have done mandatory military service)

Most men are not suitable to combat roles, they don't have the mental or physical capasity.
Most men will hate mandatory service and they do not "toughen up" they just do the minimum to avoid sanctions

[Leonard D Neubache]

Most of the founding fathers were utterly against standing armies and centralised power. Mandatory service to the federal forces of the united states would have them spinning in their graves.

That said, I believe it would utterly be in the interest of certain states to make service to their own national guard mandatory at age 18.

At 18 the potential draftee could leave the state if they so chose and choose to live in a non-draft state. Voicing consent/discontent "with your feet" was much of what the original Constitution was written to encourage.

The youth would get their rite of passage without the sick fucks in DC having an endless supply of fresh meat to feed into the grinder of foreign intervention on behalf of the donor class.

Places like Idaho or Texas could also empty out the progressive dickheads that didn't want to fall in, encouraging them to piss of to somewhere like Commifornia.

Applying for a driver's license in draft-states could trigger the draft for newcomers under the age of 30 except by exemption of the Governor.

Or something like that...

[Andreas]

Mandatory military service only works when you split the soldiers into two categories. The ones who don't mind going to war and the ones who don't want to. In that case, the soldiers who don't fight should only be drafted for maximum 6 months (more than that is going to crush your soul and make you depressed) and get paid less.

Also you are not exactly the ''slave'' that some people might think. The power structure is not so rigid in my experience (I was not in the US when I was serving). Some kids' fathers are high ranking officers (brigadiers or majors who work close to generals and politicians) and so no one can give them shit in their unit. In most cases, who you know matters more in terms of how much power and ''freedom'' you have rather than how you rank.

Yes you do have to pay fines or temporarily go to military prison but you have to fuck up badly for that to happen. You will have to physically assault people, trespass other units or refuse to do your guard duties during day and night. Even the most power hungry and idiotic officers will not put you through too much tough shit and if they do violate some rules, you can report them to other officers and you can be sure that they are going to get punished.

In short, mandatory military service is only good for a very limited amount of time, not fighting wars for those who don't want to and keeping the soldiers busy by teaching them a trade in their units and going through some basic training.

[dispenser]

If you want a school of hard knocks, add hard knocks to existing schools.
Vocational courses, morning drills and camping trips should do the trick.