Should conscription be re-introduced in 21st Century Australia? (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

Except for the fact that Australia has a high rate of youth unemployment, which has remained the case over the past decade. The Smith Family produced a report back in 2003 which makes for an interesting read; especially regarding the youth 'at risk' of unemployment.

I'd turn that line of 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' back on you and say that I believe things are broken in regards to youth unemployment in Australia, and that things aren't exactly 'working fine'. Adoption of a National Service program would go a long way to resolving some of the main issues contributing to this.

But does national service actually provide any valuable skills, especially for the 'leeching' youth, who would be reluctant conscripts, that you're worried about?

National service would have a huge budgetary cost, and much of the training and skills taught (e.g. guns, killing people) are not at all useful in the wider economy. It's just wasted money to keep people off the streets. Sure, some will learn useful skills, and the army teaches trades etc, but why not just do so directly?

Perhaps our high schools could operate in a more militaristic, demanding and labor intensive manner to provide the same discipline and work ethic, without the extended time frame?

If you want to go down the path of federal government investment to combat youth unemployment, it'd be better to do so directly and make all education in high demand areas free, along with even more massive subsidies and support for people employing apprentices. Remove the disincentives that currently exist for unemployed youth to gain the skills that will help them secure employment.

 

[loquasagacious]

As Graney points out there are better and cheaper ways to resolve youth unemployment such as additional funding for traineeships, apprenticeships, wage subsidies and other assistance. While the free-marketeers could solve it by removing minimum wages and allowing youth to bid wages down to a level which supported full-employment.

This then begs the question of what purpose national service would be performing?

• Weight loss and fitness - seems a bit of an over kill
• Discipline and respect for authority - seems to be something which schools and parents should be providing. And providing at a far lower cost.
• A larger body of trained soldiers - for when China/Indonesia invades?

At it's core the national service proposition seems to rest upon nationalistic principles. That is a belief that war will be visited upon us by our enemies and that we should use war as a foreign policy tool. This situation would require a disciplined society and large pool of trained soldiers - which is precisely the purpose of national service.

This kind of nationalism and real politik is by now uncommon in the developed world and unlikely to see a resurgence in the near future. And even if it did the context is so different that the large army which national service provides would be of minimal use.

If developed countries went to war with each other the fighting would tend to be short and sharp as the conflict rapidly escalated to a nuclear confrontation. This wouldn't be a WWI or WWII where Australia would recruit, train and deploy to Europe. In all likelihood it would be over before we could get any serious forces on the ground (even if we flew soldiers in their tanks, vehicles, supplies, etc would need to be shipped).

If Australia went to war against a developing country then a larger army may be required to participate in a shooting war and then occupy the country - but seriously does anyone see this happening? The world will flash back to the 19th Century and colonialism will be back in vogue? Even if we tried the developing world is such that we would be mauled. Examples include USSR in Afghanistan, US in Iraq, US in Vietnam, US in Somalia, etc etc.

If a developing country went to war against Australia then what would they do? Firstly they have to get here which basically means they need many large transport vessels which developing countries don't have. Even if they did have them we could target them en route using our air force and navy - which doesn't require a large number of people. Even if they managed to land it would most likely be the Northern approaches. Lets assume they level Darwin, then what? They march to Sydney? The logistical issues would be insurmountable.

Realistically the military operations which Australia is likely to engage in are peace keeping missions in our region - which don't require large numbers of soldiers. Deployments with our larger allies abroad - which don't require large numbers. Maintaining air and sea superiority on our approaches - this requires slightly larger numbers but is within our current capacity.

In short, even without looking at the cost of national service in dollars and freedom we can reject it as an anachronism of a bygone era, out of place in Australia today.

PS: will reconsider national service when we need to colonise the galaxy and fight bad ass aliens.

 

[loquasagacious]

Anyone who voted no is a coward

Anyone who voted yes should man (or woman) up and join the reserves.

For the part time of their lives.

 

[blue_chameleon]

But does national service actually provide any valuable skills, especially for the 'leeching' youth, who would be reluctant conscripts, that you're worried about?

It's not a case of who i'm worried about, I'm more focusing on who I believe the country can benefit greatest from.

Thinking about this side topic more and more, in terms of addressing youth unemployment, I would shift focus to implement more of a 'Boot Camp' Program run over a period of 12 months or so.

I would be looking more at building intangibles that increase their chances of further educating themselves or entering the workforce, through instilling in youth a sense of purpose, self esteem and self belief so that they could recognise they are able to achieve more than a life of crime/drugs and reliance upon government assistance to cover basic necessities. I wouldn't focus on building actual technical skills here. The intention would be to get the problem youth into a position where they want to work and achieve. Then of course, look providing enough supply through apprenticeship/further education schemes to cater for their career desires.

National service would have a huge budgetary cost, and much of the training and skills taught (e.g. guns, killing people) are not at all useful in the wider economy. It's just wasted money to keep people off the streets. Sure, some will learn useful skills, and the army teaches trades etc, but why not just do so directly?

I'm not sure of the specific budget for the NS programs in either Singapore or Switzerland so I can't speculate on how expensive it would be to implement a system of that type in Australia. Realistically though, I can't see a 12 month 'Boot Camp' type program costing the world for a select group of troubled youth.

Perhaps our high schools could operate in a more militaristic, demanding and labor intensive manner to provide the same discipline and work ethic, without the extended time frame?

That's a fair point. I could however, see this having a negative impact on a students learning experience. Personally, I think there needs to be more done in schools to identify 'at risk' youth before they reach Year 9/10 and get their ticket out of the system.

There's been debate a while ago on whether schools should extend their responsibilities in developing fundamental skills in youth, the debate being that it potentially lifts responsibility from parents. Developing specialised units within schools that cater for identifying and assessing these 'at risk' youth, rather than the tried-and-tested band-aid solution of expulsion where schools can effectively wipe their hands clean of problem youth, without attacking the core of their issues.

If you want to go down the path of federal government investment to combat youth unemployment, it'd be better to do so directly and make all education in high demand areas free, along with even more massive subsidies and support for people employing apprentices. Remove the disincentives that currently exist for unemployed youth to gain the skills that will help them secure employment.

Whilst a fair idea, as pointed at above, I think simply widening acceptance into further studies and offering more apprenticeships is missing the crux of the issue. Imo I dont see that it's an issue of cost that is restricting these individuals in a lot of these cases, but rather lack of direction/belief/motivation etc. The fundamentals that allow us to make sound decisions on our direction for the future, even if that direction is simply getting a job.

Allow them to be pulled out of their comfort zone and address who they really are and develop their core interests along with building self esteem and educating on life decisions. Throw them into reality. Take the militaristic, labour intense approach, but separate it from the school environment so that learning is not adversely affected.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Fair points though Locky/Graney.

Conscription in the sense of the sort through the Vietnam War wouldn't provide enough benefit to the country to warrant it's expense.

An idea that has lost its relevance in today's society.

 

[Iron]

Anyone who voted yes should man (or woman) up and join the reserves.

For the part time of their lives.

my bro's in the navy. I encouraged this
service completed

 

[loquasagacious]

my bro's in the navy. I encouraged this
service completed

One for the church and one for the forces?

 

[Iron]

Something like that comrade

 

[ryanmcgoldrick]

Big Boss, honestly your views are disturbing.

I completely disagree with your idea of true "Men/women of Australia", tight jeans and flamboyant t-shirts do not define a man. or hinder the reputation or look of Australia. Australia is a multi-cultural society, with those cultures comes different foods, clothing, languages,traditions and so on.

If the world did not have people like yourself that are scared of everything that is new or different than there would be no wars.

I know when i was in school we learnt about Australian settlement and the wars we were involved in, this creates a good appreciation of the sacrifices made so we can have the country we have today.

Surely by now mankind must recognize that warfare achieves little and destroys lots, we should focus on unity and understanding rather than creating barriers and encouraging bodily harm. A friend of mine said to me "If everyone in the world could go on an exchange to another country and live their for a year (Like a student exchange sort of scenario, Host family etc) their would be no war as everyone would come to understand and appreciate the rest of the citizens of the world.

 

[TommySix]

I believe that kids today would benefit from a bit of military training to put things into perspective as well as to learn important social and decision making skills. That is what the Army Gap Year program is for and it should never become compulsory.

 

[Gerald10]

The single greatest thing about Australia is that it is a liberal democracy. Forcing individuals to fight for freedom is ridiculous.

 

[CMCDragonkai]

Near the turn of the century, WW1 hits. Conscription was instated, conscription seems to be instated whenever there are epic wars happening. In my opinion, conscription should be used when the time calls for it. However during peace, the army should remain professional volunteers.

 

[Laika_]

Near the turn of the century, WW1 hits. Conscription was instated, conscription seems to be instated whenever there are epic wars happening. In my opinion, conscription should be used when the time calls for it. However during peace, the army should remain professional volunteers.

yeah then it went to a referendum and it was defeated you spick

 

[TommySix]

The single greatest thing about Australia is that it is a liberal democracy. Forcing individuals to fight for freedom is ridiculous.

Well you mean that it is SUPPOSED to be a liberal democracy.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Near the turn of the century, WW1 hits. Conscription was instated, conscription seems to be instated whenever there are epic wars happening. In my opinion, conscription should be used when the time calls for it. However during peace, the army should remain professional volunteers.

Wait.....volunteers?

 

[CMCDragonkai]

yeah then it went to a referendum and it was defeated you spick

Was that meant to be an insult? Anyhow, remember that I did not dictate any specific country.

@blue:

What are you confused about?

 

[six demon bag]

Anyone who voted no is a coward

Anyone willing to support war is a coward.

 

[Nousiainen]

I would have no problem being forced into the army if everyone else was. Perhaps I'd make new friends, get fitter, and get some more discipline and bragging rights. But seeing as I don't trust politicians in this country, I think if we did have conscription, they'd probably send the poor conscripts to fight wars overseas instead of training them to act like a militia if a foreign country invades, i.e. like what they did with Vietnam.

I also don't think the state should hinder an individual's progress in life or instill sexist values. If men have to go to the army, women should be forced into stereotypical women's work like cooking or becoming a nurse for a similar amount of time. Since no other country really forces women into this (apart from Israel?), I doubt the same would happen here, and so I'd be against it since it only serves to waste your time for a threat that doesn't exist. You could better spend your time working, getting money, or studying and ultimately reaching the end of your studying to enter the workforce.

My friend in Israel is going to be in the army for 4 years. I can't think of a bigger waste of life in my opinion, especially in one's early years when they should be focusing on enjoying life before they get forced into a million years of boring senseless work.

 

[Big Boss]

Once again this thread contains some hypocrites and cowards themselves.
Conscription can be seen as a means of testing your survival abilities and on the darker side it can serve as population control which it should especially those who voted "No" are weak, and only survive in society as parasitic membranes.
Whether it be a government, yourself, etc. must force you to fight and live on, you must find your own reason to fight.
Unfortunately in modern times this isn't the case, many of you four limbed land based homo sapien leeches continue to live and say I'm disturbing? HA!
Should a war arrive in Australia where civilians are targeted, those who voted "No" will likely perish first.
There will always be conflict and I have been in many.
As for those who agree with me I thank you.

 

[JonathanM]

I also don't think the state should hinder an individual's progress in life or instill sexist values. If men have to go to the army, women should be forced into stereotypical women's work like cooking or becoming a nurse for a similar amount of time. Since no other country really forces women into this (apart from Israel?), I doubt the same would happen here, and so I'd be against it since it only serves to waste your time for a threat that doesn't exist. You could better spend your time working, getting money, or studying and ultimately reaching the end of your studying to enter the workforce.

My friend in Israel is going to be in the army for 4 years. I can't think of a bigger waste of life in my opinion, especially in one's early years when they should be focusing on enjoying life before they get forced into a million years of boring senseless work.

All wrong and unfounded. Around 10 other countries also conscript women. Also the army service for men is not as long as 4 years (it varies a lot). Women are also conscripted for 1 year less than men and are not allowed to be directly involved in battles, although Israel is unique in that it puts them in positions of considerable danger.