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.

  • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
    153·
    2 days ago

    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.todayEnglish
      6·
      2 days ago

      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.todayEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        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
      12·
      2 days ago

      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”?

      • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
        1·
        14 hours ago

        Your question makes no sense. The war being with the intention of conquest or subjugation has to do with what the attacker is doing, whereas all that came before is about what the defending side of this “hypothetical” conflict is doing. The two are not related, so the question doesn’t make sense.

        If your question was supposed to be something among the lines of “then how do you explain this clearly conquest/subjugation was where the defending side has no volunteers” then the answer is what he already told you in the reply but you claim he didn’t, i.e. attrition is a thing, and after years of conflicts people lose hope. In this theoretical conflict there might have been a high influx of volunteers at the beginning of that conflict, if there were then that could have allowed a theoretical small country to defend themselves against even a theoretical huge military superpower for more time than anyone would have predicted. But after a year of your country being devastated, no one coming for help, and the military superpower just keep sending fresh soldiers constantly from an apparent infinite pool, it’s understandable that people will lose hope and not volunteer anymore.

      • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
        31·
        2 days ago

        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…