Poll: Manditory Service in the US

[Samurai Goomba]

The idea of mandatory military service seems to run contrary to core American values, i.e. that you have the freedom to live without the government intervening (in this respect, it is unsurprising the U.S. has not implemented, say, mandatory voting). Moreover, the implications of mandatory service of the more gritty variant are sometimes catastrophic for certain parties: in Finland they have it, for example, and there has been numerous examples of homosexuals having killed themselves during their service.

This. Taking away someone's freedom in order to protect freedom is just a tiny bit ironic. An all-volunteer army is one of the few things that makes America the only place I'd care to live... Actually, I wouldn't mind living in Western Europe, but that doesn't help my argument, so whatever.

 

[SimuLord]

They'll have to catch me first! I love my country and all that jazz, but the day I get drafted into the military is the day I become a proud Canadian.

The day they make any community service of any kind mandatory is the day I don't run off to Canada but rather off to the nearest gun shop to start the damn revolution. I love my country and would rather fight against its tyrants than go running off with my tail between my legs.

In point of fact I'd love to see someone challenge mandatory community service on 13th (or even 5th) Amendment grounds. Any time labor is taken without compensation I call that slavery.

Yes, I know the draft has been upheld as vital to the national interest, but fighting for a country's safety and being forced to perform labor against one's will without first having committed a crime or otherwise been convicted by due process of law goes against the individual rights and liberties on which this country was founded. I would sooner take up arms against such a state than for it.

 

[Balios]

Hence Attrition = numbers and tactics. Point is he was outnumbered and the Allies adopted new tactics that lead to his defeat.

Actually, the larger your numbers, the harder attrition is to manage.

It doesnt have to be managed well it just has to be done. Like in WW2 with Russia, they lost more soldiers than every country but the Germans didnt defeat them.

 

[nekolux]

Well for me, i'm 100% against this. One of the requirements of being in an army is to break down someone's individuality and rebuild them into part of a team. The training is extremely tough, not to mention the fact that you are basically being trained to be a killer for your country. Now patriotism's fine with me on the small scale but there is no 'moral' ground for killing someone. There is NO way you can justify killing someone.

True the military is needed for defense but isnt the military doing fine right now by asking for people who actually WANT to join the army?

Regarding Obama's view on mandatory service , im rather disturbed by that. The possible repercussions of taking out most of the working class for 2 years to be in the military while the economy is taking a brutal beating would be pretty serious.

And i'm actually rather surprised at how many people are agreeing to mandatory service here. I mean HERE seriously? I thought we were all geeky guys who just wanna play video games =P


P.S Patriotism - Blindly loving and devoting oneself to one's country.

P.P.S The army has a system that is unacceptable socially. A leader giving a direct order to a person of lower rank and that low ranking person cannot question the leader's intention.
For someone to be put through such a fascist routine, i think it's only fair that the guy gets a say in whether or not he wants to go through it

 

[Najos]

I voted "Yes, all forms of service."

I'm hoping what you meant by that is that it would be an option. As in, you get to pick which one you want. Everyone isn't cut out for military service and I don't want to see an USA where everyone is required to join. It would change the face of our nation way too much and in a negative way, I think. But if you spread the options out enough it would work out really well, I think.

Police officers, firemen, military, peace corps, and hell, even parking authority would work. Basically anyone being paid by City, County, State, or Federal funds. It would allow people a choice that fit their education/religion/whatever. You also wouldn't have as much of a backlash if people were given fair options.

 

[Isaac Dodgson]

No.

I don't have to like this country, let alone serve it. I'm not here by choice mind you and because i've grown to dislike this place over the years i will, the first chance i get, get the hell out. I'll play by the rules, i'll coast along until then, but mandatory service is a line i will not cross.

EDIT: That, and the fact that i've already been informed by both the army and navy that due to my GAD i'm unfit for service anyway.

 

[Rankao]

I'm not surprised at the people who said no, but I am surprised about how much people don't even care about their own community on the local level. How can you hate a place so much that you consider your own people to not be worth your time?

 

[nekolux]

I'm not surprised at the people who said no, but I am surprised about how much people don't even care about their own community on the local level. How can you hate a place so much that you consider your own people to not be worth your time?

Rankao the reason for that is mainly because they're making it MANDATORY. At a voluntary level its perfectly fine to take part in community patrol or stuff like that but this is different.

 

[SteinFaust]

mando military service. creates stronger citizens and a sense of community and patriotism.

 

[Deg]

If you were to read my post again, I wasn't suggesting that we cut those programs just to support a larger conscript military, but to use funds from bogus projects like those to support the entire conscription service, i.e. Military, Civil Service & Peace Corps.

At no point was I suggesting that we just inflate our military to exponential levels, but rather, give people an option on whether to serve in the military, or another option such as civil service or peace corps.

And again, if anyone thinks that this is just too expensive, ask yourself; how much have we spent fighting in Iraq? Now ask yourself if that money could have been spent just a little better?

Trouble is, the judgment you put on those 'bogus' projects you mentioned is based on hindsight. Going into those projects they probably all seemed like good ideas to those who proposed them and to those who give out funding. But alas, that is the problem that all projects face, on one hand they could churn out the next big thing for the military or just end up spinning its wheels in a ditch, but you wont know which until the project gets to about its midway point (or until its done). After all I?m sure that some thought a jet could never be stealthy (in regards to radar signature) or thought that powering a submarine with a nuclear reactor was insanity, or that making a ship out of metal would make it sink instantly, but those turned out very well.

My point is, its fine and dandy to say "lets cut out bogus projects" but you never know if a project will be the next atomic bomb or will end up in "My tank is fight!: part 2", until it gets underway. And to make it get underway you have to fund it, but you don?t want to fund bad programs...but you won?t know they?re bad until you fund them. Then we get into catch 22 territory.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Except that a man with a Bofors gun and a searchlight can prang a stealth fighter. Or anyone flying any kind of fighter jet made since the 1950s. Or a bloody Tiger moth with a rocket launcher on the nose, for that matter.

Stealth tech=Absurd waste. Incredibly large amounts of money spent on something the Russians would have countered by simply flooding the area of incursion with chaff and night-fighters. $1 billion per stealth bomber. Something much less for a MiG-21.

I do like these odds.

 

[SteinFaust]

Except that a man with a Bofors gun and a searchlight can prang a stealth fighter. Or anyone flying any kind of fighter jet made since the 1950s. Or a bloody Tiger moth with a rocket launcher on the nose, for that matter.

Stealth tech=Absurd waste. Incredibly large amounts of money spent on something the Russians would have countered by simply flooding the area of incursion with chaff and night-fighters. $1 billion per stealth bomber. Something much less for a MiG-21.

I do like these odds.

stealth planes are just dumb. they're giant, (relatively)slow-moving triangles. watching one of those fly is like watching the star destroyer scene in the 'first' star wars. psh, A.A. magnets...

 

[NeedAUserName]

I don't like the exclamation mark at the end of the No option, as it implies that I feel strongly against it, whereas I feel you shouldn't because if you do people wouldn't try as hard and as a result more people will die, (assuming its for the army, (although it would be interesting to see how that would arise in the Local option))

 

[Beowulf DW]

Except that a man with a Bofors gun and a searchlight can prang a stealth fighter. Or anyone flying any kind of fighter jet made since the 1950s. Or a bloody Tiger moth with a rocket launcher on the nose, for that matter.

Stealth tech=Absurd waste. Incredibly large amounts of money spent on something the Russians would have countered by simply flooding the area of incursion with chaff and night-fighters. $1 billion per stealth bomber. Something much less for a MiG-21.

I do like these odds.

stealth planes are just dumb. they're giant, (relatively)slow-moving triangles. watching one of those fly is like watching the star destroyer scene in the 'first' star wars. psh, A.A. magnets...

What sources are you using for your judgements?

A.A. magnet? Isn't that what the STEALTH and "under cover of darkness," is for?

And how the hell are you going to get night-fighters, chaff or A.A. prepared when you don't even KNOW that a stealth bomber is coming, let alone from where and when it will strike?

Furthermore, I doubt a MiG-21 would last 30 seconds against the stealth/semi-stealth F-22 or F-35 (MiG-29 or MiG-35 would stand a much better chance).

On Topic:

I don't like the idea of any kind of mandatory service, civilian or military. Required community service for teenagers? Does anyone actually believe that will build character? If they don't want to do it, they'll only be more resentful when they're forced.

About the draft in the United States: Does anyone else think that it's kind of messed up that, according the current laws/policies, the U.S. government thinks that at the same age I'm old enough to kill for them, I'm still too young to imbibe alcohol?

 

[hamster mk 4]

I picked No. America is not likely to be in a state of war that will require conscript troops. Our land bordering neighbors Canida and Mexico are on good terms with us and any invasion accross the sea would be a logistical nightmare so long as the US maintained air supriority over the ocean (which we had damn well better considering the airforce's R&D budget).

Countries that do have manditory military service like Isrial and Russia have had large scale land wars on their homeland and have had to fall back upon conscript troops. So it makes sense for them to train their entire populus in which end of the rifle is the dangerous one should the need for conscrips arise again.

Manditory service might make us a more civilized as a people but it would not be worth the expense, or the whining. Military service as it is now, voluntary with perks, is the ideal system for our country. Since we will most likely not be fighting on our own soil, a smaller more motivated miltary is preferable to a larger militarty comprised of more dead weight, for transportaition and logistics alone.