Compulsory military service Whaddya reckon?

[nero_bolt]

She is an A grade bucket mouth and  nutter BUT does this idea of hers hold merit

Is it a  good idea or not

Me i like the idea

Lots of benefits would come from it and it would help a lot of unemployed youth get some experience, some training and even some pride in themselves

[iapetus_rocks]

I think Jaqui Lambie is being distinctly un-patriotic and a traitor to her right-wing political philosophy; that, or she just doesn't understand how our economic system works.

We need our unemployed; they perform a useful function. Well, maybe not for me or you, but think of all those rich people for a moment.

Capitalism requires that there be not just unemployment but that the unemployed be unhappy.  . . .  for three reasons:

1. Capitalism requires an excess supply of labour in order to bid down wage growth and industrial militancy. When Norman Lamont said unemployment was a “price well worth paying” to get wage inflation down, he was just blurting out the truth seen by Kalecki 50 years earlier – that “unemployment is an integral part of the ‘normal’ capitalist system.”

2. Capitalism needs the unemployed to look for work – to be an effective supply of labour. This requires that they be “incentivized”to seek jobs by meagre unemployment benefits and by being stigmatized. In other words, the unemployed must be made unhappy.

3. Blaming the unemployed for their plight serves a two-fold function in legitimating capitalism. It distracts attention from the fact that unemployment is caused by structural failings in capitalism, sometimes magnified by policy error. And in promoting the cognitive bias which says that individuals are the makers of their own fate, it invites the inference that, just as the poor deserve their poverty, so the rich deserve their wealth.

http://mattbruenig.com/2012/02/19/unemployment-is-a-structural-problem-in-capitalism/

[horizon1907]

That's real nice then. That doesn't mean that others will agree. I don't think it would solve anything. I agree to disagree.

[lurker172602]

Why does my hypothetical student doctor need to know how to use weapons, tanks, bazookas? I would have thought it would be better for us all if he/she spent their time learning how to mend those your military maimed.

[polksaladallie]

Every young American person used to do some compulsory public service.  I can't remember what it was called.  Do they still do this?

It gave them a rounded view of life before they embarked on further studies.

I have met lots of medical students, and almost all of them had a pathetic narrow privileged view of society.  Not good for someone who will be serving the general population..

Now, in Queensland anyway, medical students have to do a couple of years of other subjects before they enrol in medicine.

[polksaladallie]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

There would be plenty of benefits such as learning how to defend our country in times of war. Learning a multitude of skills for future potential which you can't ever learn in a university classroom. Real life skills, leading a team and giving orders etc. How to use weapons, tanks, bazookas. How to use military grade specialised equipment. You can't learn this at university.

---

Yeah, let's give some of these angry young men the skills to use lethal weapons.  A splendid idea.

[cmcoins2000]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

I reckon all persons male and female should do compulsory military for 2 years at age 18.

Dole bludgers or not.

---

Can assume you will be the first to attend your medical.

[lloydslights]

I believe the Swiss have compulsory military service for able bodied males (and females who wish to participate) that leads to a sort of Army Reserve.

I'm in two minds about the subject.  

The Defence force is not only "bullets".   There are chefs, drivers, carpenters, medics, logistics, etc.  The Army Reserve assist in domestic catasrophies - floods, fires, searches, and so on.

Some 18 year olds, don't know what they "want to do when they grow up".  Maybe a hands on experience brings a passion they had not considered.

DEB

[*lady*godiva*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

A period of voluntary service might be OK. They could learn some new skills and those who complete the training period & enjoy it and have the right attitude could apply to join the Regular Forces.

---

How old are "youth"?

There is already a system in place that could facilitate this, or be developed to suit it better - the Cadet programs.

Even they have some pre selection criteria though, so not everyone who applies/volunteers can join.

In the current system, you have to be under 18 to apply, but they don't kick you out until you are 20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Air_Force_Cadets

[*lady*godiva*]

---

@lurker172602 wrote:
So tell me UFO, what possible benefit could a high achieving student, who has topped his/her year at school through hard work and dedication, who wants to go straight to university to study medicine, get from two years in military service?

---

A lot actually. (though this is different to what I think UFO had in mind)

A high acheiving student can apply to go to uni at the UNSW. If accepted and their course aligns with one required by the DF, then can apply to be accepted into ADFA. The defence force needs doctors, pilots, engineers, accountants, lawyers, purchasing officers, supply chain logistics suppliers, marketers - pretty much everything needed in the "outside world"

The benefits:

A Free university education - the Gov foots the bill.

A paid wage whilst you study - something like $45,000 per year

Subsidized food and acommodation

Guaranteed first job on completion of your degree (If you do a 4 year degree, you have to then serve for an additional 4 years)

During term time your work is to study, you don't have to do all the "boot camp" stuff, you don't have to try and juggle work with study.

They only go to the military training (which is what I think UFO has in mind) for 13 weeks of the year - during regular university breaks.

Most uni students attend uni 26 weeks a year, and have a further 4 weeks a year examination periods = 30 weeks a year

Even with the 13 weeks of "work" required a year, the ADFA kid still gets 9 weeks paid leave every year - more than double the anual leave most other employed people get.

$40,000 k a year is not bad money for a 13 week block of paid work - kids trying to work part time whilst studying would be hard pushed to earn that kind of money.

So the concept that UFO proposes isn't actually unreasonable with adjustments - I am not sure about the compulsory aspect though - Kids can join the forces to do trades, apprenticeships or uni, other unqualified employment such as cleaners, even retail shop assistants! (In Afghanistan, for example, the allied troups had an entire shopping complex for them, there were shops from McDonalds to Harley Davidson - it was all staffed by military personel) and soldiers (what I think UFO has in mind), but even those who aren't the foot tromping, gun toting soldiers complete 13 weeks a year of basic training.

I do think that acceptance needs to be discriminatory based on physical and mental capacity/ability

[*lady*godiva*]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:
So tell me UFO, what possible benefit could a high achieving student, who has topped his/her year at school through hard work and dedication, who wants to go straight to university to study medicine, get from two years in military service?

---

There would be plenty of benefits such as learning how to defend our country in times of war. Learning a multitude of skills for future potential which you can't ever learn in a university classroom. Real life skills, leading a team and giving orders etc. How to use weapons, tanks, bazookas. How to use military grade specialised equipment. You can't learn this at university.

---

I'm not certain I would want every kid in Australia to know that. I think it needs to be provided with consideration for suitability. We might accidentally breed our own terrorists - export em to the ISIS already trained! (I am thinking of that 17 year old kid who just went over there)

If we have a strong front line defence force, we have the man power to commence war, and time to train more men. Even during the world wars not every member of the population was at war for every second the wars were on - we tended to deploy them at different times and spread it out a bit. We didn't just send everyone over all at once.

That's where the focus needs to be, on keeping the wars off australian territory, so we get to choose who and how often our people are involved. Once they fight on our land, it diminishes our choices and it may be that everyone needs to fight, if not for their country, but for themselves. That's why I agree with sending our people to places such as Afghanistan - keep the war away from Australia - fight it in their neighbourhoods before they get here.

Plus, when you think about it, with the speed of technological advancement and the continual adaptation required to not only know our weaponry, but also that of the enemy, two years compulsory training for everyone would be futile. By the time some may need to use their military training, the skills they learned and machinery they learned to operate, may be superseded and irrelevant. Why spend money on futile training? select a smaller sample and have them continually trained, and then train others as required.

We are very fortunate in Australia, we are not at constant war, nor do we have it in our backyards. I see no reason to permanently arm the entire adult population.Teach those who need to know, when they need to know, i reckon.