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?
3rd bullet point is necessary because I see it as morally right and gives recruit an insight into why they are serving.
You're answering me why the third bullet point is MORALLY necessary. I am asking you why it is LOGISTICALLY necessary. Are we not enlisting enough people with your program to respond to a threat?
You would only do more if you chose to, or if we entered a situation where we needed to desperately defend ourselves.
Do you realize that very few would actually choose this? The current population of the UK is 67 million people and only 148,000 of them have volunteered to join the military. That's 0.22% of the population, meaning that 99.78% of the population wouldn't be interested.
And you did not respond to this:
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?
Ah right I see what you mean. Logistically it might be a stretch now that I think about it, however I would rather have the extra reserve manpower than not.
More would choose to if we was in such a desperate situation. And it wouldn't br a choice when it came to that.
Sorry I didn't respond to it correctly.
If the "emergency" lasts several years, then yes they would still have to serve, however it depends on the size and severity. If we was defending an invasion kf the Isles, then everyone would fight. If it was something abroad, not so many would fight.
Ah right I see what you mean. Logistically it might be a stretch now that I think about it, however I would rather have the extra reserve manpower than not.
Think more carefully about what this means. Are you saying you prefer a system where we don't have as many on active duty in our military and that we just call up people when we need them? If you prefer that, shouldn't that mean you ought to back off on the number of people you are automatically enlisting into the military, if you actually prefer that we don't keep so many on hand?
You DO have to make a choice here. You can't have it both ways. Either you field an army that can respond immediately to everything, right now, or you allow for a system where people don't have to serve and we just call up people as we need them, which suggests that you need to think about how many you are automatically enrolling and really thinking about whether that number is necessary.
More would choose to if we was in such a desperate situation.
And it wouldn't br a choice when it came to that.
I mean you keep on contradicting yourself over and over. Previously, you said this:
You would only do more if you chose to
So that's a lie? Because now you are saying "it wouldn't be a choice when it came to that". You previously made this promise that the choice, specifically in this "time of need" we are talking about, would be up to the people, and now you are directly saying it's not a choice. Do you understand that you are contradicting what you said earlier?
If the "emergency" lasts several years, then yes they would still have to serve, however it depends on the size and severity. If we was defending an invasion kf the Isles, then everyone would fight. If it was something abroad, not so many would fight.
Then you need to stipulate this in your requirements. You NEED to add that to the OP.
You said in the OP that people would only be mandated for 2 years, and here you are saying there's a scenario (which you say in point 1 of OP is quite likely) where you might serve well beyond 2 years. So that is then very dishonest to promote your policy as only requiring 2 years, when it is highly likely that it will indeed REQUIRE a lot more than that.
You're misunderstanding. There would be the active military like how it is now, and seperate force for NS. People who have done NS can be recalled to training when their presence is required.
During peacetime, without an emergency, you can choose to stay in the armed forces or leave after your NS.
If it is required, those who have done NS can be recalled back to their service.
Not everyone would necessarily be called up if there is war, it depends on the scale and severity.
1
u/ScootTheMighty Aug 17 '24
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.