Conscription

Posted by: Justin on 29 May 2004

Over here in the united states there is a sort of low-grade rumble concerning some form of compulsory military service for able bodied young people - a plan, btw, which would appear to include females and well as males (which is something new over here).

How is military service handled in the UK? Is it an all volunteer force, or is there some form of conscription? Is there any form of compulsory civic service?

Judd
Posted on: 29 May 2004 by Bhoyo
Conscription was scrapped in the early 1950s and has never been revived. The only compulsory community service is for people convicted of fairly petty crimes.

Davie
Posted on: 29 May 2004 by Steve Toy
I thought the US had conscription and it was called the draft. Weren't the young chaps who were sent to 'Nam conscripts?



Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 29 May 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
I thought the US had conscription and it was called the draft. Weren't the young chaps who were sent to 'Nam conscripts?
Regards,

Steve.


Well, yes, the US did have the draft, but it was abolished after Vietnam in favor of an AVF. There is talk now of bringing it back.

Judd
Posted on: 29 May 2004 by Steve G
In purely military terms (except in times of major conflicts) conscription is a disaster, as you have to deal with large numbers of people who really don't want to be there.

It's far better to have a purely professional force.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Mick P
I agree that conscription is a non starter.

However, I would like to see scum such as burglars and the like given, say, a one month sentence in military prison where they have no human rights at all. Even a complaint about the most trivial issue will result in a damn good kicking by a sadistic corporal.

The level of re offenders in military prisons is virtually nil. The reason being that the second sentence will be condirably longer and the sheer fear of that keeps them on the straight and narrow.

To answer the original question, conscription would apply in a national emergency but the Government would only consider it for the most extreme of conditions.

Regards

Mick


Regards

Mick
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Mr.Tibbs
"To answer the original question, conscription would apply in a national emergency but the Government would only consider it for the most extreme of conditions."

Would that be if some burglar scum nicked your Naim Mick?

Mr Tibbs
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Mick P
Hopefully even if they nicked a shirt button.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by oldie
Mick,
With respect but,have you ever thought about changing your news paper, your answers are straight from the Daily/Sunday hate and are so predictable.
oldie
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by BigH47
Obvioulsy some burglars have much too good a taste to go in the forces.
From what I recall the "draft" in the US for nam seemed to mainly include young poor whites and blacks,the rest seemed to have built in "getout" clauses. Much the same at any time or country I suggest.

Howard

"there are other newspapers?" MP
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Tony Lockhart
Hate to break this to you Mick, but human rights exist in the forces too. And health and safety. I left the air farce 14 years ago, and back then the 'sadistic' types were on their way to jail. Hope they had a good time.

Tony
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Mick P
Mick,
With respect but,have you ever thought about changing your news paper, your answers are straight from the Daily/Sunday hate and are so predictable.
oldie

Oldie, with respect, so are yours.

I just hope your house dosen't get burgled or your wife or daughter gets attacked, because if it does happen, you are partly responsible because of your forgiving attitude.

My solution is easy, if they are dead or imprisoned, they cant do bad things, and I just don't care one ioata about them or their civil rights. I care, however, about inocent victims rather than scumbags.

Regards

Mick
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by oldie
Yes Mick,
We have had the unfortunate experience of having our home burgled and it's not a experience that was either pleasant or one that I would wish to repeat, but in my opinion your method of "treatment" doesn't work it only alienates people further into a life of isolation from mainstream society and further more, prisons just seem to be the best training ground for more offenders to carry out their chosen trade. The answer seems to be, get rid of the drug pushers/barons provivde
jobs and opportunitys so that self esteeam can be re astablished. A very simplistic view I know but I think a much better approach to the problems than just locking people up and then throwing away the key which clearly doesn't work.
oldie.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Mick P
The facts are simple, locking them up and throwing away the key means they wont burgle your house. They will only do it when they come out, so do not let them out.

Do not concern yourelf over them, they did not worry about you when you were burgled.

Regards

Mick
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Barnie
Well I don't pretend to know the answers, although Micks stance seems to me a cop out and this from Oldie is a bit simplistic...

"The answer seems to be, get rid of the drug pushers/barons provivde"

IMO the problem runs deeper than that. How on earth are the third world countries going to pay of their debts, without their produce? I believe these drugs are allowed at higher levels. That IMO is were the real problem is!

Corruption is everywhere you look, not just in the poverty stricken...
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Thomas K
We (in Germany) have had conscription for several decades now. At the beginning, almost all young men had to serve in the forces, one year or less, I think. The duration was later increased, and after some years people started using their right to object on grounds of conscience and instead had to do community service. As long as I can remember, community service has always been longer than military service -- the reason was, of course, to deter people from objecting. Further deterrents were stupid pseudo-psychological tests objectors had to take.

When I was conscripted I "opted" for community service -- the main reason was not so much that I oppose a military as such, but I too think that conscriptees don't make for good forces. (I then served 20 months on the surgical ward of our local hospital as opposed to 15 months in the army. The duration has now been reduced again.)

Furthermore, I had friends who'd done military service before me, and the stories they related as to the utter lack of education among trainers and officers, the mindless macho culture, drinking binges and sheer inanity that seems to prevail were enough to put me off. Incidentally, I was also told that I would be treated like shit when I went for my medical if they knew I was an "objector" (you have to go no matter what type of service you do). As I believed in the goodness of mankind, I told my friends to stop being polemic and that I'm sure the authorities would only react like that if provoked by Che Guevara t-shirts and smug grins. Despite the fact that I was as polite as anyone could be, they took one look at my file and ... treated me like shit.

Currently, only one third of the young male population is conscripted because the military requires fewer recruits than ever. This, of course, raises complaints as to the fairness of the entire procedure -- whether you have to serve or not is more or less down to a draw. Despite recent discussions to move towards a purely professional army, the government has decided to stick to conscription for now.

Another problem is that hospitals, homes for the elderly etc. have come to rely and depend on conscientious objectors (although this was never meant to be) -- in some cases (meals-on-wheels and the like) the care staff consists of 20 objectors and one professional who runs the place. If you abolished conscription, the care sector would be in big trouble. Therefore, political decisions regarding the armed forces are directly associated with the care sector -- how absurd is that?

Why women are not conscripted remains a mystery to me. All in all, conscription now leads to every sixth young person in Germany having to dedicate roughly one year of their life to the good of the country while all the others can get on with their career or whatever.

Thomas

[This message was edited by Thomas K on Sun 30 May 2004 at 15:27.]
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by HTK
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
My solution is easy, if they are dead or imprisoned, they cant do bad things, and I just don't care one ioata about them or their civil rights. I care, however, about inocent victims rather than scumbags.

Regards

Mick


Yeah. Shoot 'em in the back to take the load of the prison system. If they survive, give then a million years hard labour. Better still, go out and round up all the ones who look suspect before they can offend. And at all times, pray that no one ever gets wrongly convicted, especially anyone dear to you.

With respect.

Cheers

Harry
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:

From what I recall the "draft" in the US for nam seemed to mainly include young poor whites and blacks,the rest seemed to have built in "getout" clauses. Much the same at any time or country I suggest.

Howard

"there are other newspapers?" MP


This is true. The draft in the late 60's early 70's was a disaster because it had too many wealthy getout clauses (school and professional deferments) - but in terms of equality, it was an improvement over the previous enlistment scheme which was even more skewed towards lower income and minority.

The new draft would not include any of those getout provisions, as far as I know.

judd
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by oldie
Barnie,
I did say that it was a bit simplistic,but as most of the crimes in this area seem to be to support drug habits if you can remove the pushers etc. it has to help. I still think support is better than incarceration, I hope we left Micks way of doing things back in the middle ages, or perhaps Mick would like to be back there Wink
oldie.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Roy T
Has conscription has crept in by stealth?

With reservists and national guard units suffering both longer terms and quicker rotations of duties both within the USA and overseas, although not strictly defined as conscription it has a similar effect by keeping “weekend soldiers” underarms without allowing them too much say in the matter thus removing them from their normal life for extended periods of time. I know this is what they signed on for but I would expect very few though that this clause in their contract with the state would ever be activated and they may well view this activation as conscription. I would suspect that to enact conscription will send the message to the public at large that things have suffered a sea change and that the forces may well be in for the long haul – this I would think is not what people or politicians want to hear before November. One might expect that this extended call to arms would bind the nation but this is a gamble and I expect the odds do not look too good from a politicians point of view.

I feel that some view conscription as a form of community service on steroids but conscription and community service are not completely interchangeable and although someone on community service may well be suited to cleaning grease traps hidden deep within FT Hood Tx. I suspect that the best way they could serve the country is to allow the release of existing administration type staff for other duties.

Roy
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Barnie
Oldie,

Yes I agree it would help to remove the pushers, it's not so easy to do it though, most of them are victims of society and it's lucrative, which means there's 100s waiting to take their place, the only way to stop the pushers is to stop the supply!

I also agree that support is better than incaceration, it's cheaper too. The trouble with harsh punishments is, that it just breeds more of the same, nothing in this world is as black and white as the way Micky see's it.

>perhaps Mick would like to be back there <

Judging by Micks chosen form of transport, I think you could be right! Oh well, back to wind up gramaphones it is then.....

Cheers

Barnie.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Tony Lockhart
What are conscripted men supposed to do? The forces are a lot more technical than the last time men were forced to die for their politicians. I for one wouldn't want to rely on a nineteen year old skater boy to provide covering fire in a back street in Basra.

Tony
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:
What are conscripted men supposed to do? The forces are a lot more technical than the last time men were forced to die for their politicians. I for one wouldn't want to rely on a nineteen year old skater boy to provide covering fire in a back street in Basra.

Tony


Well, I think even conscripts go through 6-8 weeks of training - more if they are destined for specialized duty like airborne, special operations, etc., right? I don't know the specifics of training, though. How much training did the 3 million soldiers get in WWII before they were sent out "to die for their politicians"?

Judd
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by ErikL
What happened to championing better diplomacy and sharing the burden? I mean, reinstating the draft for next Spring seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to one president's policies. Call me crazy.
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
What happened to championing better diplomacy and sharing the burden? I mean, reinstating the draft for next Spring seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to one president's policies. Call me crazy.


Sharing the burden with who?

I have no idea whether a draft is wise or needed. I think IF Kerry wins (or maybe, even if Bush wins) more troops are going to be sent in in any event. I think the feeling is that a draft will be needed to do that.

Judd
Posted on: 30 May 2004 by Roy T
Rumor aside, draft's return most unlikely

While many in the military support conscription on the grounds of social equity or national service, nearly all professional soldiers think that bringing back the draft now would reduce the quality of the military, while driving up its cost.

"The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."


Now read on, this is one of the more reasoned notes I have seen on the return or not of the draft and from looking at this I don't think the winds of war will be blowing too strongly in the near future if only due to the expense of all that training.

Roy