conscription and selective service

[epronovost]

Clearly not in that instance.

A volunteer force isn't immune to bribery, treason, cowardice and undiscipline. The safest way to muzzle these issue has always been to not lose battles and not fight overly long conflicts for very little gains, but that's fairly tautological.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, there's no such thing as the perfect army.  The way we do this now is just a compromise between two different types of imperfect armies, itself imperfect, but significantly improved with respect to either of the other two.

[CarveTheFive]

I’m opposed to slavery so no.

[Minimalist]

Sure, there's no such thing as the perfect army.  The way we do this now is just a compromise between two different types of imperfect armies, itself imperfect, but significantly improved with respect to either of the other two.

You mean like when President Mushroom Dick tells them to go sit on the border as an election gimmick?

[CarveTheFive]

Having to register is not having to serve, which is my point. Everyone should do something, everyone should get the opportunity to serve their country. Everyone should know what it's like to be a team and dependent on the guy next to you. I agree that it's a strong bastion for sexism but requiring everyone to do some time would help break that down, I believe. There might need to be a few more exemptions and qualifiers added, but I think generally it would be beneficial.

I’ve enjoyed serving my fellow man by sucking his cock. That doesn’t mean I think it’s something everyone should have to do.

[epronovost]

Sure, there's no such thing as the perfect army.  The way we do this now is just a compromise between two different types of imperfect armies, itself imperfect, but significantly improved with respect to either of the other two.

In general, a nation at peace with a good reserve of relatively young adults will have a military either composed of volunteers or a military caste, but nations engaged in frequent wars or small and threaten will have armies composed mostly of conscript simply because they have no choice. They need those troops because they are at war or constantly under threat of war. A pacifist nation with few enemies and no credible threat can go with a militia, but that's only to save costs on having to maintain a standing military of professional, which, lets face it, have a very, very limited role outside of an armed conflict. Armies are there to respond a "defense" policy first and foremost. As a military historian, we live in a facinating time for armed forces as technology and social transformations are profoundly changing military culture and the very perception of war and national defense. Large professional armies made exclusively of male volunteers are disapearing. Fist women, after centuries of bad disguises and "one time exception", are starting to enter armed forces in almost all modern nations. The development of cyberwarfare and extansive occupation operation have seen a return of mercenaries. While international trade and alliances have reduced the need of a large military on paper as an intimidation and coersion tool. I don't think the army should move away from the volunteer model, but who can volunteer and for what should be expanded.

[Minimalist]

Our problem seems to be that "peace" is bad for business.

And in an all-volunteer military that burden is not shared equally.

Sooner or later something has to give.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I’m opposed to slavery so no.

Draftees got the same benefits and ass-chewings I got. And the great body of them served honorably and even had some fun in the process.

[CarveTheFive]

I’m opposed to slavery so no.

Draftees got the same benefits and ass-chewings I got. And the great body of them served honorably and even had some fun in the process.

Were they free to go home?

[tackattack]

Having to register is not having to serve, which is my point. Everyone should do something, everyone should get the opportunity to serve their country. Everyone should know what it's like to be a team and dependent on the guy next to you. I agree that it's a strong bastion for sexism but requiring everyone to do some time would help break that down, I believe. There might need to be a few more exemptions and qualifiers added, but I think generally it would be beneficial.

I’ve enjoyed serving my fellow man by sucking his cock. That doesn’t mean I think it’s something everyone should have to do.

If it's beneficial to the society as a whole why wouldn't you want everyone to do it? Seems like it's more selfish than selfless though, and societally I'm down with the benefit to the greater good being a team approach