Mandatory Military Service for the US? Could it help?

[GWestphal]

Seems like everyone wants to improve employment rates and there is a push to improve infrastructure. Do you think having a 1-2 yr mandatory National Guard/Army Corps of Engineers, where each state would have some percentage of able bodies to direct towards their infrastructure/whatever needs would be useful thing? Many (most?) countries have a required military stint. Maybe that would be a way to ease this current economy. Say over the next 10 years everyone between 18-50 years of age would need to put in 1 yr of military service where their food and housing is paid for and they make a fixed salary of $40,000 or something like that. Seems like it would get people working, trained at something new, or just get them that kick to get back on their feet if they are down on their luck while bypassing expensive, inefficient private contractors for infrastructure. There could be some tax benefit given to businesses for each employee. This is just a vague nebulous idea, just wanted to see what people thought of it.

 

[randomrogue]

Countries are moving away from this and not towards it in order to save costs and adapt to a changing geopolitical landscape. The days of huge land wars are probably over and so is the need for lots of soldiers.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Nope, not a good idea.

Why take tens of millions of productive people away from the jobs that they are already working at? The disruption to the economy would be massive.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Countries are moving away from this and not towards it in order to save costs and adapt to a changing geopolitical landscape. The days of huge land wars are probably over and so is the need for lots of soldiers.

LOL I don't think so

Bible says 100 mil army attack and gets raped

 

[AznAnarchy99]

LOL I don't think so

Bible says 100 mil army attack and gets raped

Bible didnt predict tactical nukes. Jesus fail.

 

[AlienCraft]

While it might be a good idea politically (all classes share the risk to their progeny), it is never implemented for that same reason. As long as the idea can be sold that an all volunteer force is more motivated than a conscripted one, conscription will not be. This alone separates along class lines.

 

[wiredspider]

Some people are just lazy and incompetent, military won't change that.

 

[SSSnail]

...bible says...

LOLFAIL!!!

:awe:

 

[BoomerD]

If, instead of "between 18 and 50," every man or woman, following graduation from high school, was required to spend 2 years in one of the armed services in some capacity to earn the right to attend a college/university...combat soldier, medic, clerk, whatever their aptitude testing showed was the best fit.
Not physically capable or a qualified "conscientious objector"? Then something like the National Medical Service, Peace Corps, or something else to be determined later.

Following 2 years of satisfactory service, the person gets full G.I. Bill benefits for college.


Of course, such a thing would NEVER happen...so go ahead...shoot for the moon and dream on.

 

[Nebor]

While I think it would lessen our tendency to send the military into conflicts, it would also degrade the quality of the military. I suppose Israel proves that's not necessarily true though.

I doubt mandatory military service will ever return in the United States. Most Americans now would rather surrender the cause than go fight themselves.

 

[jruchko]

While I think it would lessen our tendency to send the military into conflicts, it would also degrade the quality of the military. I suppose Israel proves that's not necessarily true though.

I doubt mandatory military service will ever return in the United States. Most Americans now would rather surrender the cause than go fight themselves.

I am sure it helps to be a very small country surrounded by a bunch of other countries that don't think you should even exist. I personally cannot think of any greater motivation to become a better soldier.

 

[Doppel]

Doing this to resolve unemployment is certainly not effective, that reminds me of the term pissing on a bonfire.

 

[leper84]

Seeing as how the military's first thought when faced with budget reduction is to slash and destroy service member benefits instead of glut and private contractors... the last thing they need is mandatory additional payroll costs.

They're already about to cut their retirement by half or more... with that many extra bodies I'm sure they'd find an excuse not to pay them retirement at all. Remember this is the same government that could afford to pay KBR untold billions from the start of the wars but took almost to the end of 04 to get us plates for our flak jackets and up-armored hmmwvs.

Also keep in mind a huge payroll expense in the military is basic and job related training for service members. It makes sense when you have volunteers that could potentially spend 20 years in service to help negate that cost.. not so much when you have conscripted kids who don't want to be there and want out at any cost. Would be pissing away a ton of money.

 

[Ghiedo27]

Creating infrastructure jobs is a good idea. Bloating federal spending for military training is, imo, the wrong way to achieve that. At 2 years of service you're really just becoming proficient at what you've been trained to do unless you're just mixing cement. It takes more time than that to recoup the cost of training. That doesn't even account for the people dumped back into the job market at the end with similar skill sets.

And no thanks to the social engineering aspect. Military service doesn't give someone character (I'm saying that as a former service member).

 

[LookBehindYou]

I saw some real pieces of shit people that were pretty much worthless in my 9 years in the military. Those were volunteers, I'd hate to think the kind of model people we'd get if it was mandatory for everyone.

Also, where would the money come from to pay for benefits, especially the G.I. Bill.

 

[yh125d]

I saw some real pieces of shit people that were pretty much worthless in my 9 years in the military. Those were volunteers, I'd hate to think the kind of model people we'd get if it was mandatory for everyone.

Also, where would the money come from to pay for benefits, especially the G.I. Bill.

We've got plenty of cotton to print more bills on so don't you worry about that

 

[ichy]

I am sure it helps to be a very small country surrounded by a bunch of other countries that don't think you should even exist. I personally cannot think of any greater motivation to become a better soldier.

Yep. The United States today is MUCH more like the late 19th-century UK. They had an all volunteer army of long-service professional soldiers, which is what you need to fight the small wars of empire. Conscripting people to defend their homes and families is one thing, conscripting them to go half way around the world to fight in some shithole like Afghanistan is a very different thing.

 

[LTC8K6]

If, instead of "between 18 and 50," every man or woman, following graduation from high school, was required to spend 2 years in one of the armed services in some capacity to earn the right to attend a college/university...combat soldier, medic, clerk, whatever their aptitude testing showed was the best fit.
Not physically capable or a qualified "conscientious objector"? Then something like the National Medical Service, Peace Corps, or something else to be determined later.

Following 2 years of satisfactory service, the person gets full G.I. Bill benefits for college.


Of course, such a thing would NEVER happen...so go ahead...shoot for the moon and dream on.

We're already long past broke.

 

[Sentrosi2121]

Good idea. But instead of militarizing the youth, conscript them to building up our infrastructure; including the roads, bridges and any sort of green energy initiative is relevant to the region (solar panels for the desert, wind turbines for the Midwest, tidal generators for the coasts). Incentive is that they get college credits and they get their first two years of college/trade school/apprenticeship paid for by the government.

 

[keird]

Creating infrastructure jobs is a good idea. Bloating federal spending for military training is, imo, the wrong way to achieve that. At 2 years of service you're really just becoming proficient at what you've been trained to do unless you're just mixing cement. It takes more time than that to recoup the cost of training. That doesn't even account for the people dumped back into the job market at the end with similar skill sets.

And no thanks to the social engineering aspect. Military service doesn't give someone character (I'm saying that as a former service member).

Along these lines, please try to immagine being in charge of a 120 man company where you would lose a third of your unit every year. All the experience and training a Soldier would receive in a year; gone like a puff of smoke. Look, conscript armies certainly sound like they involve a segment of the entire nation and cause the populace to really think before commiting to military actions but in practice it doesn't work that way. Just look at the presumption that this thread began with; the military as a jobs corps.

The percentage of the U.S. population that has served in uniform and have been involved with the War on Terror is around 0.45%. That's it.

 

[ShawnD1]

We've got plenty of cotton to print more bills on so don't you worry about that

Wouldn't the army just be an extension of high school? What's 1 more year?

They would probably lower the standard just so nobody feels bad. You can't shoot the broad side of a barn? Here's your participation trophy for trying.

 

[DrPizza]

1 to 2 years? In the trades, it takes multiple years to reach journeyman. You're really screwing up the percentage of rookies vs skilled workers.

 

[destrekor]

Mandatory Public Service - possibly/yes.
Mandatory Military Service? No.

I say Public Service because, one, I don't want a lot of you entering our Armed Forces - better quality but lower numbers is a better approach and has worked well.
There are a lot of organizations that could use "volunteers" - put up a large list of places someone could choose to work for for a few years, and let that qualify as their service obligation.
Simply putting everyone to work for the country itself, in public service, would open their eyes to a few things and would be a positive experience for most.

 

[FoBoT]

recession -> depression -> nationalism -> war

 

[fatpat268]

Absolutely not. What the US could use, is a program to train unskilled workers into skilled workers for the government. Put the same kind of contractual obligations on the people like they do for the military, and train them up. Unemployed and those looking to get training (but can't afford it) would sign up by the bucket load.

Of course though, the US Government really doesn't have the money for such a program