National Service

JoeyPeeps

Do you think there are any merits to having national service? I think it would be a good idea having young people in the services learning skills and trades.

mikeym

It would cost money and use up resources that could be better used elsewhere.

JoeyPeeps

mikeym wrote: »

It would cost money and use up resources that could be better used elsewhere.

How much does it cost to have soldiers in the army? Most conscripts are not paid a living wage.

OU812

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

How much does it cost to have soldiers in the army? Most conscripts are not paid a living wage.

Year one recruit - €334.04 a week.


Should be mandatory for at least a year once out of College & minimum two years out of Secondary school.

It would help people mature, learn a trade, discipline & how to follow instructions. Benefits to the country would be a reduction in the live register, troublemakers off the streets, conscripts could be put to work on national projects that would otherwise have a heavy labour cost. Long term, we'd probably see a reduction in crime & prisoner cost.

There would, of course, be some who won't get any benefit out of it & who would not benefit the nation (& whom we've just thought how to use weapons effectively), but they would hopefully be in the minority.

Lemming

It also treats the defence forces lke a creche service, introduces very real issues with morale & discipline because you have people who have been forced to be there, and takes valuable resources & money away from training people who want to be there. It doesn't just cost a conscripts wage, training costs money both in resources, facilities, and the instructing staff's time & pay, equipment costs money, bullets cost money, etc.

It's a sh1t idea that's sh1tter than sh1t, and there's a reason why national service was abolished in the UK, France, etc.

OU812

^ Found the army guy

Lemming

OU812 wrote: »

^ Found the army guy

If you say so, it must be true. My name is also not Walter.

Manach

To echo Lemming's comment, the noted Israeli historian Martin Van Crevald mentioned that the imposition of a martial culture on a group that has no inclination for it (i.e. the conscripted) can be damaging to the overall cohesion of an army.

Professor Moriarty

OU812 wrote: »

Year one recruit - €334.04 a week.


Should be mandatory for at least a year once out of College & minimum two years out of Secondary school.

It would help people mature, learn a trade, discipline & how to follow instructions. Benefits to the country would be a reduction in the live register, troublemakers off the streets, conscripts could be put to work on national projects that would otherwise have a heavy labour cost. Long term, we'd probably see a reduction in crime & prisoner cost.

There would, of course, be some who won't get any benefit out of it & who would not benefit the nation (& whom we've just thought how to use weapons effectively), but they would hopefully be in the minority.

Chain gangs? Why yes, yes of course.

Lemming

Manach wrote: »

To echo Lemming's comment, the noted Israeli historian Martin Van Crevald mentioned that the imposition of a martial culture on a group that has no inclination for it (i.e. the conscripted) can be damaging to the overall cohesion of an army.

Don't even need to get historical with it; it's common sense. The DS, and then the NCOs after them, will have to spend an inordinate amount of time chasing up and disciplining people who just do not want to be there. That will alos have the net effect of holding back everyone else and/or forcing training to be longer, or elements of training dropped to fit, in either case resulting in a lower standard of training.

And that's before we start trying to conjure up real life scenarios where life & limb may be at risk and all dependent on the stupid tosser who didn't give anything but attitude all throughout their training no matter what the DS did to motivate them.

4ensic15

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

Do you think there are any merits to having national service? I think it would be a good idea having young people in the services learning skills and trades.

Absolute nonsense. Training is very labour intensive. The standing army would have to number about 30,000 to handle it. There would be massive costs in providing premises and equipment. There are much better ways to waste money.

tac foley

Conscription DOES work, but only given three principal factors -

1. A large basic population, from which a putative workforce of 18 - 20 y/o persons could be continually drawn without fear of affecting the national work ethos.

2. Armed Forces based on the militia principle, like those of Switzerland and Israel, both of whom have armed forces with long-term retention and continuation training after full-time service.

3. A nation that is daily under realistic threat of war and/or annihilation.

Points 2 and 3 overlap where Israel is concerned.

The RoI does not satisfy any of those requirements.

tac

Larbre34

I have long thought some sort of national service would be very valuable. I dont think anyone is talking about wholesale conscription but at the age of 17 or 18 every kid should be obliged to contribute to their country in an equal and selfless fashion, some with military training and tasks, some on community based projects, some on overseas aid work, some in sporting or artistic pursuits.

Yes it would be expensive, but its a question of building it into our spending gradually and having sight of what values we want to prioritise as a nation. Imagine what a standardised programme could do to increase diversity and understanding, having kids from different backgrounds and wealth working on common goals.

tac foley

Larbre34 wrote: »

...at the age of 17 or 18 every kid should be obliged to contribute to their country in an equal and selfless fashion, some with military training and tasks, some on community based projects, some on overseas aid work, some in sporting or artistic pursuits.

I'm betting that large proportion of the population eligible for compulsory conscription of ANY kind would suddenly find that their relatives up in NI or just over the Irish Sea had a pressing need for their assistance.

Not ALL of the population of Ireland are as patriotic as you think they might be.

Making it compulsory in order to either retain or obtain citizenship might be a better way of securing their 'patriotism'.

Cynical?

Yup.

tac

Larbre34

Fair enough Tac, but I believe patriotism has been a dirty word around in this country for too long, it has many colours and it should be inspired in kids. Call it active civic mindedness if you like. Too many are raised with selfish values.

tac foley

Can't argue with your wishful thinking, but we live in a different world now. The UK got rid of conscription in the early '60s - mention of it now puts you firmly in the status of 'old fart'.

tac

TheQuietFella

Larbre34 wrote: »

I have long thought some sort of national service would be very valuable. I dont think anyone is talking about wholesale conscription but at the age of 17 or 18 every kid should be obliged to contribute to their country in an equal and selfless fashion, some with military training and tasks, some on community based projects, some on overseas aid work, some in sporting or artistic pursuits.

Yes it would be expensive, but its a question of building it into our spending gradually and having sight of what values we want to prioritise as a nation. Imagine what a standardised programme could do to increase diversity and understanding, having kids from different backgrounds and wealth working on common goals.

A chain-gang is what you're looking for!

Stars and Stripes

OU812 wrote: »

Year one recruit - €334.04 a week.


Should be mandatory for at least a year once out of College & minimum two years out of Secondary school.

It would help people mature, learn a trade, discipline & how to follow instructions. Benefits to the country would be a reduction in the live register, troublemakers off the streets, conscripts could be put to work on national projects that would otherwise have a heavy labour cost. Long term, we'd probably see a reduction in crime & prisoner cost.

There would, of course, be some who won't get any benefit out of it & who would not benefit the nation (& whom we've just thought how to use weapons effectively), but they would hopefully be in the minority.

While agreeing with your sentiment, isn't that already happening with job schemes like Job bridge etc

Del2005

Larbre34 wrote: »

Fair enough Tac, but I believe patriotism has been a dirty word around in this country for too long, it has many colours and it should be inspired in kids. Call it active civic mindedness if you like. Too many are raised with selfish values.

18 years old it too late, it needs to be instilled from earlier and can be easily done in school.

The problem with conscription in this millennium is that the army will have to spend it's whole time dealing with the parents after their Little Darling had bad words said to them, look at the sh!te teachers have to put up with from disruptive students parents.

Then think what happens when they are given a gun, don't forget this is the generation that has been brought up with it always being someone else's fault.

Stovepipe

The Scandinavian countries that have obligatory service usually defer the refuseniks to do public service instead, such as voluntary service in care homes and so on, even to the extent of serving overseas building houses in poor countries and so on, instead of forcing them into the Army. I met one Dane who had his medical degree paid for by the State and part of the cost was doing a year minimum as a medic in the Army and a year for free for the Social Services. He was paid a basic wage for the duration, as his accomodation was looked after by the State...... Armies really only want volunteers who give a **** about doing mil service; even Russia has long gone over to contract soldiers and will ultimately have a full contract army.