This question was inspired by a post on lemmy.zip about lowering the minimum age to purchase firearms in the US, and a lot of commeters brought up military service and training as a benchmark to normal civilians, and how if guns would be prevalent, then firearm training should be more common.
For reference, I live in the USA, where the minimum age to join the military is 18, but joining is, for the most part, optional. I also know some friends that have gone through the military, mostly for college benefits, and it has really messed them up. However, I have also met some friends from south korea, where I understand military service is mandatory before starting a more normal career. From what I’ve heard, military service was treated more as a trade school, because they were never deployed, in comparison to American troops.
I just wanted to know what the broader Lemmy community thought about mandatory military service is, especially from viewpoints outside the US.
Hmmm. I could support mandatory service, but not necessarily military service. An army of conscripts isn’t a very good army; just look at Russia. OTOH, I think that, in general, a population that has some basic level of training so that they can be called up and quickly activated if the professional military needs more people isn’t a terrible idea. On the other other hand, I think that people being conscripted to do public works and service is a pretty solid idea.
That said, I’d be much, much more supportive of a system where no one had citizenship–and I mean no one–without doing four years of service for their country first, in whatever capacity they were needed and capable of serving, whether that’s some form of military service, or working in soup kitchens. E.g., unless you are willing to work for the country, you should not be able to vote -or- be elected, nor should you have absolute, unfettered free speech. IMO people need to be invested in some way in their country. Look at immigrants that have been naturalized; they’re often far more serious about their citizenship and their responsibilities as citizens than people that were born and raised here. IMO we should aspire to have all citizens be as committed as those that have been naturalized.
EDIT - to be clear, I support a population being actively engaged in the politics of their locality, state, and country. Too many people are disengaged from news and politics, and that’s a terrible thing.
As far as firearms training, my issue is that it’s often used as a way to deny rights. E.g., make training mandatory to get a permit, but make training expensive, inconvenient to get to, at times that conflict with work schedules, etc., in order to discourage people from exercising their right. If training was offered on-demand, was free, and you didn’t need to pass a test in order to be able to use your civil right, then sure. Like, the hunters’ safety classes? You have to take the class, but you don’t have to pass a test in order to be permitted to get a hunting license. (Or, you don’t in my state. I’ve taken the class; most of it is pretty basic if you are already familiar with guns.) Any system that uses testing to determine if you can exercise a civil right will inevitably end up functioning like literacy tests did for voting rights.