Mandatory military service for every 18-year-old citizen- How far it is justifiable?

Mandatory military service for every 18-year-old citizen- How far it is justifiable?

Military service means services by a person or group in an army or any other military services, whether as a chosen job or as a result of an involuntary draft which is called conscription. In the world, almost every country that uses conscription systems only conscript men; only a few of them also conscript women.

The issue of national service program implementation has been a part of the debate.  In 2012 Thomas Ricks presented a public conscription plan which has been examined for its abridgment of young citizen’s freedom and the likelihood that its execution will be viewed as an offense to the frequently accepted notion that entitlements are inherent rights. So, in that case, if the U.S. fails to return to a conscription model, cultural decay will continue, an inadequate number of citizens will look forward to military duty, and thus the U.S will not be able to go to war. A national service program should not be performed merely to limit U.S. engagement with abroad but to ensure that the U.S possesses in perpetuity the ability to associate itself with elsewhere only when it is in the country’s interest.

Ricks’ plan intended an offer of a viable national service program blueprint. It mentions high school graduates would have three avenues from which they had to pick one: military service, no service or civilian national service. The first two titles would offer positive incentives such as college tuition assistance, mortgage guarantees, and medical care. Opting out of federal service would be perfectly legal but would come with the negative incentive which is of preceding many entitlement benefits.

Proponents of this matter say that the Mandatory military service can promote unity in the country in several ways. First, it allows citizens to train each other together, creating that shared experience of having served in the military. Then there is also to be aware of the general understanding regarding what life in the army is like, what must be done and what is required of the job to protect the country. Citizens can understand and even develop an appreciation for the offerings that people in the military made for their nation. Above all experts believe that such things can bring people together, especially when dealing with a political or cultural threat from other countries.

Besides, life in the military can teach individuals more than how to throw a salute or shoot straight. The training provided goes far beyond the technical skills needed to get the job done. Many military aides who have pursued a career in the nonmilitary workplace mentioned several other skills and work-related behaviors that help them well in their position. These include responsibility, teamwork, initiative, diversity, stress management and global awareness. Other people would learn the habits of healthy living and discipline as well as the skills in self-defense. Mandatory conscription means that “no one” will be spared from facing wars.

Whereas on the other hand, opponents believe that it violates the free will of the citizens. A prominent argument is that it violates people’s rights to practice free will. No individual has the final say whether they should engage or not in the military training and enter the army if a compulsory mandate is executed throughout the country. Unlike voluntary soldiers who are willing to experience severe training and serve the nation, draft soldiers frequently lack the essential experience and mobility, providing low battle skill quality as to when the time comes, they would be sent to war. Opponents believe this could lead to a high fatality rate among soldiers drafted under mandatory military service.

Mandatory military service majorly drafts young men (and women) when they are on top of their learning ability (18 years old) skill. This delays one’s pursuit for higher education as well as their admission into the civilian labor market, declining returns to human-capital investments as a result.

This is hard to put barriers on but how far do you think it makes sense on account of security of the national citizen? What is your opinion? Should every 18-year-old citizen be required to provide at least one year of military service?

28 Comments
  • Clinton Clark
    Posted at 15:56h, 06 May Reply

    I believe this would be a good time to seriously debate the idea of instituting what many other industrialized countries do and that is implement a mandatory 12 month or 18 month military or civilian duty following high school or perhaps following college. It would be the individual’s choice when to perform their civic duty. It could be military, peace corps, some kind of trade apprenticeship, etc. This would give every generation a common experience that would unite people rather than continuing to expose the discrepancies betweeh those who have and those who have not. At this time, it would give universities time to figure out what the new normal will be for higher education especially if a vaccine is never found.

  • Evan
    Posted at 19:59h, 02 March Reply

    I think that you are completely wrong about that.Six years for money for college,one tour should be enough to get money I mean for one you are risking your life for your country two the possibility of getting PTSD is crazy high so six years is a long time for money for college.Also we should not have to have at least one year in the military that takes Americas idea of freedom away and then it just would not be America.You may be right about the kids part but what if they want to go have a normal life and not be a veteran or maybe they do not want to die fighting for us so what.I know its your opinion and all but you are incorrect in your opinion.

    • Anna MacAuley
      Posted at 18:10h, 14 May Reply

      An opinion can not be incorrect, I understand you are voicing YOUR opinion to which I will not say is incorrect; However, you stating ‘you are incorrect in your opinion’ is just idiocy. Whereas, mature people are commenting facts and statistics or replying to others. You are simply disregarding someone else’s opinion in favor of your own. Facts can be proven wrong, but you cannot say that the way someone feels or thinks about a topic is wrong. Next time try phrasing your OPINION in more technical terms instead of childish words and phrases, if you expect to be taken seriously. Try stating facts to contradict in a respectful manner instead of unpunctuated, rude, opinionated slander.

  • Danno
    Posted at 19:39h, 24 January Reply

    So we’d by inducting roughly around 4 million 18 year-olds every year. How much is that going to cost? Where are we going to put them? How will this affect the quality of our forces? Sounds good on paper until you look into the logistics of the whole thing.

  • princessyo mama
    Posted at 19:05h, 26 September Reply

    Your so stoopid

    • Alexandra Tapia
      Posted at 16:52h, 04 February Reply

      That is not how you spell stupid… Just saying. 🙂

  • Sassy
    Posted at 06:06h, 18 September Reply

    For an average healthy kids yes. But there are some who have disablilities. I dont think every 18 year should go. All who keep saying yes without thought of kids with certain incapablilties. I said this because I have 3 teens with this issue. My son is 18 and he has processe disorders. One is sight processing in his left eye and hearing process with sound sensitivity. He also has Klipple Feil and scoliosis. His IQ is way below average. He’s alot like a child. I think you guys need to think about the kids who have these problems before saying every 18 yr should go for a yr. My son wanted to go but will never be able to.

    • Gavin
      Posted at 15:33h, 26 February Reply

      They aren’t going to draft your kids stupid. They are medicaly unfit. They would look into it moron. Maybe your kid with a low IQ can be a marine and have a FUTURE.

      • Kane Scott
        Posted at 18:16h, 14 May Reply

        Though you are correct about the screening, she ended her comment with him not being able to which simply means she should be able to see the ludicrousy of her input.

    • Lee Wei Long
      Posted at 09:00h, 21 March Reply

      In Singapore, it is compulsory for boys to go forNational Service(NS) under a physical ranking known as PES status which determines how healthy they are. People with disabilities like scoliosis and heart issues are under PES E whereas more healthier boys are under PES A. Males who have disabilities which makes it harder for National Service like mental issues and physical disabilites like having no limbs are placed under Pes F which means that they are not required to go for National Service.

      As a guy currently National Service, I find this stupid because they made it seem like Pes E males are “chao keng” or people who slack off, leading to people to believe that males in Pes E have greater life in National Service despite ignoring mental health and tediousness in NS through such disabilities.

  • Timothy Kidd
    Posted at 04:49h, 07 August Reply

    Yes they should. I complete my 30 year obligation in the Navy. I look at our young people todays they don’t respect their elders. they don’t respect themselves. that one thing the military does teaches respect plus. They don’t have any respect for the police, school teachers, they don’t respect each other. They don’t respect other peoples property. They had the draft before you could see the changes. most of all they don’t respect the men that have served in the military

  • Randy Thompson
    Posted at 12:54h, 25 July Reply

    I was drafted,and served 2 years, probably the best thing for me even though I didn think so at the time! Spent 9 months in the states and a year in Vietnam.

    • Lee Wei Long
      Posted at 09:01h, 21 March Reply

      In Singapore, it is compulsory for boys to go forNational Service(NS) under a physical ranking known as PES status which determines how healthy they are. People with disabilities like scoliosis and heart issues are under PES E whereas more healthier boys are under PES A. Males who have disabilities which makes it harder for National Service like mental issues and physical disabilites like having no limbs are placed under Pes F which means that they are not required to go for National Service.

      As a guy currently National Service, I find this stupid because they made it seem like Pes E males are “chao keng” or people who slack off, leading to people to believe that males in Pes E have greater life in National Service despite ignoring mental health and tediousness in NS through such disabilities.

  • Walter Langer
    Posted at 22:43h, 31 May Reply

    You want to live in this country

    • Gavin
      Posted at 15:29h, 26 February Reply

      Hell yes. If you don’t want to live in this country then get out and make some room for the good people in this country that are patriotic and understand American values

  • Duane
    Posted at 17:45h, 23 May Reply

    I must apologize, but… I completely agree with a 24 month stint of Service to the country, whether it be in the Military, in Civil Service, or walk the heck back and lose social benefits. But (and here is my but), I feel that the age should not be at 18, but at 21. We should let our children finish growing up, let them screw the pooch, learn from the mistakes and then at 21 when they can be legal in all aspects of the law, they make that choice of 24 months of service or lifelong forfeiture of national and local benefits. If they reenlist and stay beyond the two years, they start earning benefits, then the clock starts for Chapter 33, and all other VA education and Military benefits. I joined the U.S. Army at 17 by choice, and served 16 years; made a future for myself, made lifelong friendships and grew as a person. If someone else wanted to do the same prior to 21, let them, give them the opportunity to serve and be proud. If someone volunteers then the benefits begins upon completion of their training as per the current policy and CFR. Lets build our country back from a bunch of wimps, punks and cowards to the assertive, strong, and honorable nation we once were.

  • April Hartman
    Posted at 17:21h, 14 May Reply

    Both women and men all 18 years old should serve at least 2 years in the military. The military teaches discipline, communication and how to work together. In the military there is consequences if you don’t follow orders and kids today need to learn these skills. I would vote all serve at 18 for 2 years.

  • Pierre
    Posted at 00:56h, 10 May Reply

    I served 12 years in the US Army starting at age 17. By the time I finished basic and AIT I was 18. I wasn’t forced to join I went in knowing the risks and loss of freedoms that most Americans take for granted. The loudest complainers in our society are the ones that sacrifice the least. Most youngsters do not have any discipline or respect for authority, everyone thinks they are entitled to freedom, wealth, health care, education, and have everyone else pay for all of that, they want what their parents have without the sweat equity or as President Obama called it “Skin in The Game”.

    We are polarized as a nation, everything is political fuel for hating one another. We don’t need more hate and division, we need a common goal, Freedom, Prosperity, Respect, Civility. You get that by seeing the world, seeing that there are poor people dying to get here, that there’s a reason why. Yes we need mandatory service, The military will hate it, they will assume that anyone forced to serve won’t be there to help but to hinder out of disdain, those that show an unwillingness to serve militarily should help in third world countries build schools, feed the poor, purify drinking water, anything that helps is a step in the right direction.

    We are losing ground in the world on every level. we graduate idiots from high school and college and then give them a diploma like every other participation trophy they received growing up, these people are going to be running our country soon. How do you get a job majoring in Art History or Liberal Arts? The folks running our education system are drinking the cool-aid at the socialist troff, Do they never understand that this form of government has never worked. China will be more capitalist than we are soon, but their system is run by the military and at some point they will see they we have the resources that they need to survive. Someday, they will come here and take what we have, and there are those that will give it to them, but there are many more that will never let that happen. Wake Up People.

  • Lillian Mcclinton
    Posted at 15:52h, 09 May Reply

    I think that the last 2 years of high school should be served as an active military. It will give them guidance and will be an eye opener. They should be able to see what it takes to protect themselves and what they value. I think also Prisoners should serve the amount of years that the judge sentence them with. If you were given 6 years, then you serve 6 years at the front line. You still have a roof over your head, meals and clothing. It will be a great deal for prisoners. No parole. It will save money to the country. I know that parents love their children and they will not like to send their children to the military. So for those they must complay with 1 million dollars to help the economy from their hometown. Life is not easy, but We are giving you a choice either pay or go in to the military.

  • Lillian Mcclinton
    Posted at 15:50h, 09 May Reply

    I think that the last 2 years of high school should be served as an active military. It will give them guidance and will be an eye opener. They should be able to see what it takes to protect themselves and what they value. I think also that the prisoners should serve the amount of years that the judge sentence them with. If you were given 6 years, then you serve 6 years at the front line. You still have a roof over your head, meals and clothing. It will be a great deal for prisoners. No parole. It will save money to the country. I know that parents love their children and they will not like to send their children to the military. So for those they must complay with 1 million dollars to help the economy from their hometown. Life is not easy, but We are giving you a choice either pay or go in to the military.

  • Lillian Mcclinton
    Posted at 15:49h, 09 May Reply

    I think that the last 2 years of high school should be served as an active military. It will give them guidance and will be an eye opener. They should be able to see what it takes to protect themselves and what they value. I think also that the prisoners should serve the amount of years that the judge sentence them with. If you were given 6 years, then you serve 6 years at the front line. You still have a roof over your head, meals and clothing. It will be a great deal for prisoners. No parole. It will save money to the country. I know that parents love their children and they will not like to send their children to the military. So for those they must complay with 1 million dollars to help the economy from their hometown. Life is not easy, but We are giving you a choice either pay or go in to the military.

  • Bruce MacDougall
    Posted at 22:37h, 13 April Reply

    I think that all Americans, high school graduates and 18 years of age, should be required to serve their country for two years, male and female, in a national service program or a civilian service program. Included in these two programs would be conscientious objectors and handicapped people. There are jobs in these programs that most people can for-fill . I realize that there are some handicapped that have severe medical problems and could not participate in this program. I feel that participating in a regimented program would help to improve the outlook and maturity of those in the program. There would be rules and regulations that must be followed while participating in both of the previously mentioned programs.

  • Chuck Buck
    Posted at 17:09h, 10 April Reply

    We should do as Israel does. Every 18 year old serves in the military for, I believe, 2 years. Women and men all serve.

    The ultra orthodox are excepted, which is not right. They benefit from the blood, sweat, and tears of others. Why should they be excused from serving?

    If the reason for their not serving is pacifism, they can do service other than gun toting. There is plenty of need for desk work or other work that does not involved weapons and bloodshed.

    I wish I could serve now, but they say I’m too old. I could ride a desk. Let me serve.
    And yes, every 18 year old American should serve for 2 years. No excuses for college, or being the son or daughter of someone with power, or other than the most severe medical problems, like quadriplegia or being expected to die within a very few months and being comatose or in intractable pain, mentally unfit, maybe pregnant.
    But pregnancy could be cared for in the military health care system. I would like new mothers to be able to nurse their newborns for at least a year, too. Mothers of newborns and very young children could still be working in some capacity in the military on a part-time basis. They should be able to live with their children on base.
    Those with more than/other than a newborn? Those children should be cared for by spouses, grandparents, aunts and uncles, or other family members, just as they would be if a parent on Reserve duty got called up, or a parent on Active Duty had to deploy.
    Maybe these rules would encourage teens not to have children outside of marriage and not before they were finished with their military commitment.

    • victor
      Posted at 20:26h, 10 June Reply

      I comply with all your comment. As Israel all citizens must be prepared to defend their country even when must of the military forces are in the foreign country fighting, this will strengthen our defenses and other countries will think it twice.

  • Gerald
    Posted at 01:28h, 07 April Reply

    I also believe there should be mandatory service. 2 years for men and women. I like the idea of military service, civil service, or opt out. This would allow an incentive package to be used such as college, home loans, etc. For a full 4 years you would have to join for 4 to 6 years. Many soldiers already pursue college while on active duty, so if the person is motivated they could earn their degree while either in civil or military service therefore negating the negative outcomes listed in the article.
    Just giving away free college, etc., is ridiculous and further fuels the entitled feelings seen in the younger generations.

    • Mike Wolfe
      Posted at 13:56h, 31 May Reply

      I have always thought that a minimum 2 years of service, preferably military, should be required of every 18 year old. And I like the idea of graduated benefits based on length of service. This is a big win for the individual and our great nation.

  • Tracey D Soto
    Posted at 15:06h, 21 March Reply

    I agree that citizens should be required at least 1 year in the military. Kids are so spoiled and dont know how to stand on their own. They need to learn respect and abilities and skills. But stop giving away free college they should have to do 6 years to recieve money for college. Also anyone that wants to recieve citization needs service time in the u.s.

    • joe
      Posted at 00:31h, 01 June Reply

      one year is the basic of basics so to get any good it should be at least two.

Post A Comment

Log in

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy