Do you think that we could ever have a non volinteer military?

Question

Do you think that the U.S could ever operate as a non-volinteer military? Everyone would be required to join when they become 18 years old. They have to serve at least 4 or 5 years in the military. Could that ever workd in the U.S? Would our military be stronger and more powerful for that decision? Also, do you think that the political players in washington would be more hesitant about going to war because they would most likely have at least one close family member serving in the military? What do you think? Iam NOT talking about a draft, but a permanent policy of be serving at least one contract in the armed forces when you turn 18...

Again, iam NOT talking about a draft. A draft is temporary not permenant. Iam just talking about a military that has a mandatory policy of coming in at 18year old, similar to the Israeli military. It works for them, and they dont have nearly the amount of money we do. So the size of troops and paid housing shouldnt matter.

zclifton2..Now YOU are a thinker. This is EXACTLY what i was thinking, but you took it to another level.

Answer 1

This is a great idea. You can call it, the Citizens Universal Public Service Corp, or the CUPSC. Every Citizen when they become 18 years old is automatically required to join and serve for two years.
Out of Cupsc the military would then pick the number of required enlistees to serve a one year tour of duty and training period after which the Military would return those they do not need to the civilian side of Cupsc for an additional year of service to the Country.
After two year of service, the members would be released back to society with good educational benefits.
For those who were held over by the military, extra benefits would be provided.
The social benefit would be the year of service each Cupsc member would give on the job to cities and rural areas as firefighters, firemen, police cadets, or any other need the general public has that can be accomplished by the Cupsc participates.

Answer 2

Up until the Vietnam War(1960s), The US had a draft/non-volunteer military. But your idea is very similar to how Israel operates. Here in the US though, it would be a very unpopular decision in some crowds, so I don't see it happening in the near future, unless some radical changes occur. No politician would risk voting for it. A law like that would create a larger military in terms of numbers, but the amount of experience overall would go down. Also, morale problems could exist with the anti-military leanings some have. I don't think it would make leaders more or less hesitant, family members of politicians in the military get preferential treatment. George W. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam, and Al Gore (whose father was a Senator) had a bodyguard and served the absolute minimum of six weeks in Vietnam in his tour(most people's tours lasted about a year).

Answer 3

The problem with having a large standing army is keeping them busy. With a huge troop buildup and billions of budget dollars available, the likelihood of useless military action becomes high. The USA certainly doesn't need any more Vietnam/Iraq situations.

In countries like Switzerland where military service is compulsory, the recruits aren't put into a standing army. Instead, they are a reserve force that meets for training at regular intervals. Members of the military have their own lives and jobs apart from this.

I think a better program for the US would be civil service in exchange for education. Already, the National Guard pays for 75% of tuition in addition to the Army College Fund, but military operations aren't for everyone. It would be great if there were a way for people to serve their country and get an education without having to worry about killing people and being a target.

Already, 67% of tax dollars go to military spending. To increase the size of an already bloated standing army would bankrupt the country and provide very little return on investment. Certainly having a well equipped military is essential, but drafting all eligible people into the system will not provide any proportional benefit.

With problems like health care, prisons and social welfare in the balance, I think there's much more beneficial ways of using people and tax dollars to better effect.

Answer 4

We could operate a conscript military but it wouldn't be as effective an all volunteer force has certain perks over a conscript force namely volunteers have higher morale and are easily motivated into tasks such as being put into a combat zone...with a conscript they would have been by law forced into the military something a lot of people would not like and the fact that with ordered military service comes a lot of recruits who don't want to have to do something even more dangerous then being a rifleman because they didn't go willingly for it

Answer 5

We had that, it was called the draft. We don't like it. The all volunteer military has performed outstandingly well and I see no reason to change it. Now in case of a National Emergency, I would then accept a draft situation. Do you realize how much money it would cost us to house, manage, support,train, feed, cloth, pay that many troops? That's a chunk of change, especially since the only reason people seem to want it is to "make a man out of them". Why should I pay to support such a military because some parents failed their children.

Answer 6

It would make it weaker. Look how strong it was prior to the draft as an example. That wasn't even required to the degree you want it to be. The problem is you force people in and this is an otherwise free country so people will cause problems. As to proof like I said look at the draft. It even went through multiple generations. People in America don't like to be forced into doing anything, unless they think it is THEIR choice.

Answer 7

no...there would be a big surge in the prisons as well since many people of my generation do not believe in war and think that it accomplishes nothing(i am one of them).

we didn't become the most powerful nation in the world by copying Israel...there's obviously nothing wrong with our system today why change it? we have the most if not than one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

Answer 8

In Isreal you are required to join the military at 18. Both women and men. It seems to work for them.

Answer 9

properly, till the previous due Nineteen Forties, the defense force of the USA have been racially segregated. a number of the precise same objections to integrating the centers have been raised then as are being raised in this modern-day subject. Did the international as all of us comprehend it end whilst President Truman ended that wrongheaded coverage? in my view, the main effective militia interior the international is in all probability that of Israel. I recommend, they could defend a tiny u . s . a . that's surrounded by skill of lots extra advantageous, richer, and extra effective countries that are committed to its destruction. The Israeli defense force could be cohesive, expert, and effective. Has the reality that gays are allowed to serve brazenly interior the Israeli militia diminished its effectiveness one whit?

Answer 10

I think that should be the case for kids who don't go to college by the age of 20, and are still working low-paying jobs (or collecting welfare).

That would be a great option.