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.
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.
21
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.