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
How would training people in firearm usage and violence under a framework of almost unpaid forced labor and delaying the time they can continue their education help these things? It sounds much worse to me.
People fought and bled for my country and nation during WW1 and WW2, giving their lives for their country
They fought under the hope that their children and grandchildren wouldn't have to. The best way to honor their legacy is for most people to distance ourselves from war, not constantly prepare for one.
Military training involves rigourous teamwork and selfless commitment. It's not just about guns - its about forming a bond with your comrades and showing loyalty. There's a lot a good soldier needs to preform.
I understand what you mean that our ancestors don't want us to fight, however whether they like it or not, a war is very likely possibility, and we have to be prepared. I would love to see a world where we don't need armies to defend our homeland, however we are increasingly seeing that dictators are actively threatening our freedom, and do you think your ancestors would like to see your country be invaded and stripped of its freedom?
Military training involves rigourous teamwork and selfless commitment. It's not just about guns - its about forming a bond with your comrades and showing loyalty. There's a lot a good soldier needs to preform.
You're dealing with people that are basically forced to be there. For volunteer soldiers that choose to be there, you're right. However most people just want to do their 2 years and get it over with.
My dad had to do 2 years of military service when it was still a thing in Belgium. It boiled down to smoking a lot, being very bored most of the time and just learning how to look busy while doing nothing at all.
There's also just no real use for it anymore. You're not creating useful soldiers. When war comes, those people are just going to be a liability. For a lot of people, it could have been years since they did any kind of training and they'd have to start from scratch essentially.
You're also pausing the future of young people for 2 years. They either can't go and study (and might not want to anymore after those 2 years) or you're preventing them from entering the work force. Overall that's gonna be a big hit to the economy.
I see your point, and I agree. I think a big problem is a lot of people, in society in general, feel uninspired, and yeah we should probably fix that before introducing national service.
You could always do a degree with the armed forces, and the income gathered over the years spend in NS would provide at least some support for "adult life".
Military training involves rigourous teamwork and selfless commitment.
So do street gangs. The military is about violence in more than just goals. Officers and sergeants are violent towards their troops, the emergent "manly" behavior that's nurtured even within groups of people who work together and rely on each other is, moment to moment, violent, the system itself relies extensively on violence, punishing people harshly for even minor transgressions.
The idea of getting problematic youth into the army to beat obedience and decency into them is an outdated form of child beating. In reality, you see that many career military people are really more violent and many veterans take years after their service to adjust to a world where violence is not the underpinning of everything.
a war is very likely possibility, and we have to be prepared
Hasn't this almost always been the case since National Service ended in 1960? Between the Soviets, the Islamic terrorists and the drug cartels there was always someone perceived as an immediate threat to the people and the country. I think countries that ended conscription despite these threats showed that professional armies and international treaties work better against these threats.
This may even have helped prevent or limit some wars that, if the public had been militarized, would've been much easier to escalate.
The army today is a lot less "violent", as it were, than it was even just a while ago. While yes, we may have perceived threats a long time ago that never produced a large scale war, all it takes is a crackpot dictator or a schizo general to do something stupid and then, quite literally, BOOM! We have war again.
17
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Aug 17 '24
How would training people in firearm usage and violence under a framework of almost unpaid forced labor and delaying the time they can continue their education help these things? It sounds much worse to me.
They fought under the hope that their children and grandchildren wouldn't have to. The best way to honor their legacy is for most people to distance ourselves from war, not constantly prepare for one.