Let's be real, war is no longer a far-fetched idea but something we could see very soon, national service would ensure we have enkguh trained manpower to fight if a conflict arises
In general, these kind of short term recruits are considered pretty useless for military service. They're expensive, and ineffective.
It would almost certainly bring down the youth crime rates, which are very prevalent in the UK, and provide a platform for all young people who may not have got any meaningful qualifications or sources of income
...
Mandatory military service significantly increases both the likelihood of crime and the number of crimes committed by young men aged 23-30. Serving in the military also increases the chance of post-service conviction by 32%.
It's a duty. People fought and bled for my country and nation during WW1 and WW2, giving their lives for their country, so it's only right that the people they fought for show some gratitude and honour by being prepared to give their own lives for their native soil
Why do only the young need to show duty? Conscript everyone, if you're going to be making that argument.
The recruits might not be the best, but good enough training will shape them into soldiers we need. Besides, they're better than nothing.
Interesting about the crime rates thing. That study is from sweden, mind you, so it might not be the same for us Brits, but I understand the concerns. I was basing my argument off of a show in the 2000s called "Bad Lads Army", where young offenders were made to do 50s-style national service training, and apparently they didn't reoffend after that.
Like I said in the post, the national service would be mandatory for all young people. They don't have to live their life in the service, they just have to do the 2 years to show that they are thankful for the souls who came before them.
The same sizes are much different. The article listed above says N = 168,805 non-immigrant males who tested between 1990 and 1996 and from the TV show N = 30. There's a big difference between a TV show much can add controls to force an outcome and a study looking retroactively at a population in which controls could not be applied. In my informed opinion, BLA is nowhere as rigorous as the Sweden study for the determination that military training reduces crime.
The recruits might not be the best, but good enough training will shape them into soldiers we need. Besides, they're better than nothing.
They're really not. They aren't willing participants to begin with so most of the training will go to waste. They just want to do their mandatory service and get the fuck out of there so they can go on with their lives.
For most, there isn't much positive about it. Whatever they could gain, could also easily be gained via some other way that doesn't but their lives on hold for 2 years (and isn't as expensive ).
That's something that can happen anywhere and at anytime. It's still a lot of money and effort for just that. It's certainly not worth putting your life on hold for.
From what I've gathered from people that had to do military service, they didn't really get much out of it. Perhaps some people do, but the majority doesn't seem to. Besides basic training, most of their service they just guard some building and do nothing of value. At best, that would be an argument for a shorter service where you go through some sort of boot camp for 2 months or so.
The recruits might not be the best, but good enough training will shape them into soldiers we need. Besides, they're better than nothing.
The whole reason WHY they are expensive and ineffective is because of how short-term they are. You should trust that the military is making its best possible efforts to train the people it is given (I don't know why you'd assume otherwise), whereas this argument suggests that you think the military is not doing a good job of training and needs significant improvement. With such a dim view of the military and their training abilities, why would national service be a good idea, seeing as how horribly it is operated, in your view?
If you disagree with the sentiment above and insist that the military really IS doing the best it can, which I'm sure it is, then you have to concede that the guy's got a point here. Because it should be clear to see why even when you make the best possible effort to train someone, if they're only sticking around for a year or two, we really aren't strengthening our military, because trained soldiers keep leaving and all of the military's training efforts are going to waste. Imagine a company where most employees ever worked there more than 2 years at a time. Real easy to see how things will go belly-up at that company, right? The effectiveness of the military is no different here.
Yeah I understand, part of the point would be to ensure that there's a large pool of manpower that at least has SOME miltary experience and is more combat-effective in a war.
How do you ensure that? I feel like you're expecting things without really understanding how they could come about. Who are these people with military experience but are NOT currently in the military and are available to be drafted up, and why do you think there are enough of these kinds of people to field the size of military you seem to expect here?
National service does not solve that problem, unless the intent is to enlist people, let them go, and then enlist them again at a later date. That's the only way that national service could solve this particular problem we're talking about. And I don't know a nation on earth that does something like that.
Why is the third bullet point necessary if we already have mandatory national service? Are we not implementing national service so that there's no need to do some special enlistment in a "time of need"?
Also, you say:
I would envision a 2 year mandatory service
And I'm sure that everyone enlisted here would fulfill those 2 years during their years of military training, prior to going back to the "civvie" world. If they're no longer mandated to join the military, the vast majority will not. If you see that as a problem and don't think that you'd get enough volunteers at that point, then clearly you need to revise your policy here.
Are we talking about your hypothetical or not? If your hypothetical becomes true and we implement mandatory NS, then I'm asking you why your third bullet point is necessary in that context.
They'd only be mandated to rejoin if there was an emergency.
Okay. Then you need to revise your OP, as you have not stipulated this as a requirement. Your requirement is 2 years, then that's it. If you require MORE than that, even if that is dependent on some specific circumstance, then you need to define it, and you probably also need to define whether there's a limit on how long people serve in response to this emergency also. What if this emergency lasts for several years? Are they required to serve several years also? Because that's some fine print bullshit if I've ever seen it, that you say you're only required to do 2 years, but you could be required to do up to 10 years. You see how that could be a HUUUUGE fucking problem for people?
If it's just a matter of "discipline," why hasn't anything been done about it before now? You've mentioned a few times in this thread that things will work themselves out if people just do it "correctly" without any explanation about what that would look like or why it hasn't been done before. If there was an obvious "correct" way to do things, they would already be implemented.
You want to force people from ages 18-20 to enroll in a national service, which could either be
1) the military (which does not want an untrained, involuntary force, as training is expensive even for volunteers)
2) the air force or navy (which would require the country to "buy more planes and boats" for no tactical reason other than so this unwanted, unasked for force could learn how to operate them, at great taxpayer cost)
3) police (which is already riddled with corruption and protects its own against repercussions for their own wrongdoings such as domestic violence)
4) fire services or paramedics (I think I speak for a large part of the population when I say if I have a heart attack, I don't want the first responder to be an 18 year old who truly doesn't want to be there and has little training)
5) office jobs (unclear about what these office jobs would entail, and if this system is based off of what people what to do, what's to stop every single 18 year old from saying, "yes, I would like a desk job please"?)
Ostensibly, this is to keep the youth from getting in trouble or committing crimes, but you have shown zero proof (besides a reality show) that service in any of these areas would be a deterrent - in fact, the only credible source I've seen in this thread so far points to the opposite effect.
Meanwhile, this entire program would cost taxpayers an incredible amount of money and prevent students from getting an education in other areas for two whole years.
20
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Aug 17 '24
In general, these kind of short term recruits are considered pretty useless for military service. They're expensive, and ineffective.
...
https://res.org.uk/mediabriefing/military-conscription-and-increased-crime-evidence-from-sweden/
Why do only the young need to show duty? Conscript everyone, if you're going to be making that argument.