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.

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The elite pay the politic to not let their precious off-spring be conscripted.
      And if they can’t they will probably be send of to a foreign boarding school.

      • Hikermick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah but the elite are a very tiny fraction of the population. I’m talking about the general population.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        If we have 100 percent service and they don’t serve then they don’t get the rights of citizenship either.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Sure, but it will never be 100% because there are medical excuses. And they will get someone to sign a paper saying they already served and were discharged because X. Where X is something serious enough for them not to get called back but not serious enough to be immediately noticeable or too harmful outside of the military, e.g. poor eyesight, torn ligament on the leg, etc. So their kids still won’t serve.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            That’s why you do other things too. Ambulance drivers, library helpers, school assistants, construction corps, etc…

  • justhach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • hinterlufer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      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
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

    • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is exactly what I would want a compulsory service to look like.

      Fuck the military, let’s build bridges and houses and schools, and cafeterias, and farms, and staff them. Roads and hospitals.

      Nobody ever needed to make a fucking bomb

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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)

    • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Realizing the US Army is the most socialist institution I’ve ever encountered didn’t happen till years after I was out, lol

        You want school? Get it! You want food? Get it! You want clothes? You already fucking got em

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I’m not sure from the context of your comment with that “most socialist” line if you know or not but…

          Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. End line.

          Everything else is just how the society organizes itself. The US Army seeing to the basic needs of its troops is not socialism, it is the government doing things. Scandinavian countries providing maternity and unemployment benefits is not socialism. It is the government doing things.

          The US Army is not socialism. Nor is any other professional military, not even the ones working for socialist states. They are organizations trading capital for labor to empower the state.

          If you were a slave soldier, taken in a war raid, working for a monarch like the Janissaries, they would probably still provide you all of the necessities to function, even spending money to entertain yourself and maintain morale, and it wouldn’t be socialism either.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              Hell no.

              The premise of M-L types who wanted the state to control production for the workers is that the government was the workers, aka the dictatorship of the proletariat. In doing so excess production would be traded within the system to provide things like healthcare and housing.

              In theory.

              That obviously didn’t work out too hot, but even that is different in theory from a fascist or otherwise oligarchal state controlling production for the benefit of the owner class with absolutely no pretentions of providing social services with the profits. They are proudly ripping up any social safety net they find as a matter of ideology.

              Tl;Dr it’s quite literally the opposite of socialism when kings or oligarchs control and profit from the state owned enterprise. That is just the eponymous late stage capitalism, or neofeudalism/technocracy depending on the angle you want.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              Yeah, but at the same time that’s how they logic themselves into “the more things the government does the more socialist it is, and when it does a lot of things, that’s communism.”

              All that misinformation has a purpose, and it’s not to make the world a better place.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I will not befriend anyone who voluntarily served in the armed forces. Kind of like how I won’t associate with anyone who works for a weapons company or as a cop. If military service was mandatory in the USA, I would renounce my citizenship and attempt to emigrate to a more sane country. People who choose violence as a career are not worth knowing.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      You should judge people for who they are. They absolutely change over time, and the military really likes indoctrinating kids before they get good critical thinking skills. Many recruits quite literally didn’t realize what they’ve signed up for, even without the unfathomable parts.

      • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Indoctrinated is precisely the word I use to describe my pro military upbringing. Many people join young, realise what’s up and leave after minimum terms. I have no shame in saying I was basically brainwashed when I was younger.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Many places/regions didn’t offer a lot of work in the 80s, my dad went to military for mechanical work, never saw action, was able to support his family and get educated as well. There used to be a lot more reasons/benefits to join.

      I think your stance is a little stubborn, closed minded and one sided. I don’t care about military either, but damn.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, my comment was unpopular, but I’m anti-violence and stand by my words. You don’t have to commit violence to support a violent institution.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Conscription is slavery if the people are not under imminent threat.

    Conscription will always be used as weapon of the rich against the poor.

    Conscription will never affect the children of the rich as much as it affects the poor.

    Conscription does demystify military service and can teach useful skills.

    Balancing these and other factors is always the trick.

    I’d prefer a voluntary military service in a society that strongly encourages people to sign up for short service periods and doesn’t lock them in for years as an anti-abuse measure, as a training program for a more popular citizen militia defense scheme.

  • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    My response to the title: No

    If I am being forced to, I will try to steer it towards any non-combant service like IT or (if necessary) social service.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ve thought a required 2 years military or 1 year in a customer service job like retail right after high school would make fast change to people’s attitudes and empathy.

      • Default_Defect@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I worked retail on a military base, you’d think they’d be better behaved that civilians, but they aren’t. Especially the Chief’s wives.

        No, I won’t be addressing you by the rank of your equivalent to middle management husband.

        • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          maybe not, but from what i’ve seen the consequences are more fair, you don’t get 10 years in prison for doing dumbshit, you get 1000 pushups, or bathroom duty for a year, weird stuff like that. the only thing i really hated about the military was the E1s trolling high school hallways picking up underage girls. that shit was fucked.

    • Makhno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think mandatory public service would be good, with an option to choose non-combatant military roles

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I was one of the last people in Sweden to muster for conscription, I failed the first (hearing) test and was discharged.

    This was just before conscription was ended, and about a decade later we have conscription again in Sweden.

    There are two main advantages to universal conscription in my oppinion.

    1. It gives the population unity, it is a unifying experience that you have in common with everyone, this creates a stronger society.
    2. It gives the population a general understanding of guns and military action, this is useful in war as people are already familiar with the basic concepts of firearms handling and military tactics, ok, they won’t be as good as professional soldiers, but they understand the concepts and that is a good foundation to build uppon.
    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      So many people in the US join the military. I don’t really see a unifying experience happen over the pond besides PTSD…

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        6 percent. That’s the percentage of the US population who are veterans. I don’t think a military only mandatory service would work in the US but we don’t have the same effect just based on a volunteer military.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Fair point, my experience is from Sweden where we have had peace for 200 years or so

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Change “military” to “national” and I do, with appropriate exemptions for disabilities. There’s usually something a person can do for public service, even if it’s keeping a dying patient company.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I read a novel written by a Vietnam era draftee.

    There was a scene where two draftees were talking about ending the draft. One was against it because it would mean that all the people in the Army would be ‘lifers’ and lifers were the ones who were quickest to massacre civilians.

    Hunter Thompson wrote about it once. His opinion was that when he served, a lot of upper class families sent their sons to the Army. That meant that they were meeting and working with all types of people.

    My personal take is that it’s a good thing, if there’s a non-military equivalent, something like FDR’s CCC

  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I like the idea because it gives people job experience and forces them to interact with a broader cross-section of society, and might help some people who wouldn’t otherwise do so consider it as a career, making the military more diverse. It also helps us be more prepared in the event of a major war. And obviously teenage conscripts should never be given combat deployments unless the homeland is literally being invaded, we’ve seen how traumatic that is even for people who self-select into it. I very much doubt it would do anything to decrease gun violence.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Mandatory military service is the one case where accelerationism might possibly make sense. The fact that the military is made up of volunteers makes it harder to radicalize, and people are more willing to support war because, “The soldiers chose to be there.” Go ahead, rip people away from the comfort of our homes, give us guns and training, and tell us we have to go risk our lives murdering brown people on the other side of the world in pointless conflicts in service of corporate interests - it’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for them.

    I oppose the draft because I wouldn’t want to subject myself or others to that. But at the same time, I dare them to try it.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      A lot of countries make that distinction. Everyone goes through basic but you have to volunteer into a deployable job.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    It depends on how it’s done.

    First, there has to be a compensation. Generally speaking free college gets tied to it a lot. In the US a mandatory service isn’t getting off the ground without it.

    Second, there needs to be multiple avenues of service. It cannot just be military. To be honest, the military can’t handle the number of conscripts. There’s about half a million every year. So spreading that out into other service avenues such as a construction corps, EMTs, hospital helpers, legislative staff, libraries, etc, is required. (The specifics are obviously up for debate)

    I do believe a mandatory service brings people together and strengthens a country. But it’s just not possible for a large country like the US to do military only mandatory service.

  • Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s a terrible idea. Isn’t the military a strong enough institution in the US as it is? What right does the government have to rob years from the lives of their youth by having them go play soldier, especially in times of peace?

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Works best for countries that have a primarily defensive military. You have a large population of resevists to draw on for an invasion, and unless there’s something wack going on with your government, there usually isn’t a problem of motivating draftees when your country was invaded.

    Volunteer militaries tend to need propaganda to get people to join up, even in relative peacetime. That attracts a lot of people who like the idea of shooting people in other countries. Not everyone who joins up is like that, of course. Some are also in bad economic situations and have no other line of work, and some bow to family pressure. In any case, you’ll have an easier time convincing them to fight people abroad.