American conscription classes

[Straha]

US adopts 'universal military training' scheme, on old Prussian-style
model, peacetime 1954. All able-bodied men must go i nto Army after hs,
spend two years, no exceptions. Consequences?

[David S Poepoe]

I think this would be a very good idea. There would be exceptions to military service, predominately due to medical conditions or whatever would usually get you discharged. However, while not forming the front ranks it would be possible to fill spots in the support ranks. The private that files the paperwork is just as important. The state of education in the United States right now could probably do with the introduction of such a system and it be finished BEFORE graduation.

On the whole I think this would only create a very large Reserve from which to supplement the Standing Army. By the 1960s the Government would probably broaden the list of service choices to include the Peace Corps or something like that. The Army by the 1990s would be fairly similar to OTL, predominately volunteer.

[Straha]

Given how we have a thread in ASBs about the draft I figured I'd bump this.

[Fabilius]

I bet this would not have positive effect. Maybe USA does better in Vietnam, but I bet in the long run people won´t like this kinda drafts.

Especially people like me.

[HueyLong]

Actually, I think a lot of Americans may like it, especially if non-combat roles are commonplace.

It would also help push our electronics and manufacturing industries, as a lot of prerequisite skills for those will be taught to people who may otherwise never have learned them.

[Straha]

The US would obviously have a bigger class divide between the college boys/officers and the grunts

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Fabilius

I bet this would not have positive effect. Maybe USA does better in Vietnam, but I bet in the long run people won´t like this kinda drafts.

Especially people like me.

Fabilius, the only way the US could have done better in Vietnam is if we traded our politicians to the Argentinians for more leather for our boots, the US Military was containing the forces of NV. It could even be argued that we won, the North had signed a peace treaty recognising the souths exsistance,they agreed to stop fighting. That was the US's objective. That was 1973 in 1975 the North broke the treaty,invaded the South and occupied it,our politicians would not even provide air support to the South or send resupply. It is food for AH as to what would have happened had we done just those things, but we had achieved a peace accord with the North more or less on our terms so it could be considered a win. My own thoughts are that not one person or country that was involved from 1945 onward won in that place.

[NapoleonXIV]

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

Fabilius, the only way the US could have done better in Vietnam is if we traded our politicians to the Argentinians for more leather for our boots, the US Military was containing the forces of NV. It could even be argued that we won, the North had signed a peace treaty recognising the souths exsistance,they agreed to stop fighting. That was the US's objective. That was 1973 in 1975 the North broke the treaty,invaded the South and occupied it,our politicians would not even provide air support to the South or send resupply. It is food for AH as to what would have happened had we done just those things, but we had achieved a peace accord with the North more or less on our terms so it could be considered a win. My own thoughts are that not one person or country that was involved from 1945 onward won in that place.

Yeh, sure, we won; that's why the capital is called Ho Chi Minh City. Our "victory" consisted of a piece of paper. The North was never defeated in any real sense so the treaty was no more than an armistice, basically, they agreed to not take over right away, so we had time to go home.

Vietnam is a fine example of why you shouldn't have a draft, or any other kind of Universal Slavery. If you're maintaining a huge army, you'll tend to use it. Korea and Vietnam, major wars just ten years apart, were both fought with American conscript armies. If your soldiers are slaves, with a slave's mentality, then their own officers won't care about their lives, and neither will the politicians. If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.

IF you have the brains god gave a gnat, if you're a New England transplant West Texas williwaw, all bets are off

An Army should be a highly trained, well-equipped and well-motivated arm of Professional Diplomacy, whose mission is vital to the nation's survival. To treat it as some sort of compulsory two year summer camp for wayward youth insults our youth, denigrates our Army and endangers our country. The same maxim applies to any other function you might apply the Universal Slavery to. If its important enough for government to do it at all, it deserves better than slave labor to do it.

[HueyLong]

Germany still has conscription- although they've gone more lax, and allow civil service or international volunteer service form what I understand.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Straha

The US would obviously have a bigger class divide between the college boys/officers and the grunts

Well in this scenario since every man would have to serve 2 years all officers would have to start as enlisted. Would conscientious objection still exist? Also by the 1970s the rise of the women's rights movement could have interesting effects on universal military service (UMS). Since every man would be serving in the military (not just a percentage as in OTL) it could effect male/female relations. Would it be harder for society to see men and women as equals if women don't have an equivalent to UMS (pregnancy doesn't count unless mandated by law). By the 1980s either women will have some king on mandatory service (doesn't have to be military/ doesn't mean they'd do combat) or conscription would be abolished. Certainly conscription would be eliminated/ scaled down after the Cold War ended.

[Burton K Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Straha

US adopts 'universal military training' scheme, on old Prussian-style
model, peacetime 1954. All able-bodied men must go i nto Army after hs,
spend two years, no exceptions. Consequences?

Straha, I would LOVE to be your drill sergeant. The thought is making me smile...

The same goes for all you young punks (under 20). Gotten fat and lazy as civilians, have you?

[Flocculencio]

See my comments in the ASB forum thread on this subject for why I feel that peacetime conscription is a really bad idea.

A short summary would be as follows:

-Leaves large units of people doing what is effectively make-work
-Dilutes the effectiveness of the actual professional troops as they'll spend most of their time babysitting troops who are only going to be in uniform for a year or two.
-Leads to political problems with deployment of National Servicemen
-Inculcates a culture of laziness and corner cutting due to aforementioned make-work

[Fabilius]

Originally Posted by HueyLong

Germany still has conscription- although they've gone more lax, and allow civil service or international volunteer service form what I understand.

Finland to. And there is some sort of military duty in Norway.

[EmptyOne]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.

I think history (esp the war in Iraq) shows it is only less likely ...

Flocc has many good points about why universal service is bad, but I've also noticed he is proud of his service and the things he learned there.

I think that if, as David suggested, the opportunities are expanded to include non-military options like the PeaceCorp it could work. But as always, the devil is in the details. How it's set-up and run will be what really matters.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Straha

The US would obviously have a bigger class divide between the college boys/officers and the grunts

not exactly, the idea actually is EVERYBODY does it. The one year voluntary service for higher educated recruits as opposed to the normal 2years you might have in mind while posting this sentence seems to me have more of an levelling effect as just a degree or ROTC.

[Fenwick]

Well as how often America deploys its military some may have problems with it all. My brother did his year in the Austrian army and it was no problem for he said "who am I gonna fight?" And this was in the 80's.

I did my 500 days, and even went to the practice range when I was told to. Of course at 18 in 1986 how many enemies would the Swiss have?

I think there is a big difference between service in a volunteer army and conscription in a nation that declares itself the "police force" of the world.
Also, and I may be mistaken, but are not volunteers better soldiers?

[Straha]

Originally Posted by The Bald Imposter

Straha, I would LOVE to be your drill sergeant. The thought is making me smile...

The same goes for all you young punks (under 20). Gotten fat and lazy as civilians, have you?

Originally Posted by Steffen

not exactly, the idea actually is EVERYBODY does it. The one year voluntary service for higher educated recruits as opposed to the normal 2years you might have in mind while posting this sentence seems to me have more of an levelling effect as just a degree or ROTC.

Sure the rich boys would hve to do it but they'd be officers due to high connections. I think flocc once mentioend in chat abotu how the elites got perks when doing their naitonal service in singapore.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Straha;

Sure the rich boys would hve to do it but they'd be officers due to high connections. I think flocc once mentioend in chat abotu how the elites got perks when doing their naitonal service in singapore.

wait a moment: the prussian system you referred to allowed, depending on education (3-tier educational system), the upper two variants a shortened (1 year) service.
After this service, they could apply for a reserve officer´s commission.

the current model makes everybody drafted the same, officers (career and reserve) are required to have done their service as enlisted men before.

Of course, there are usually comfy jobs for the well-connected, from service in a garrison near the hometown (harder as many garrisons are closed and posts in administrative positions.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

Yeh, sure, we won; that's why the capital is called Ho Chi Minh City. Our "victory" consisted of a piece of paper. The North was never defeated in any real sense so the treaty was no more than an armistice, basically, they agreed to not take over right away, so we had time to go home.

Vietnam is a fine example of why you shouldn't have a draft, or any other kind of Universal Slavery. If you're maintaining a huge army, you'll tend to use it. Korea and Vietnam, major wars just ten years apart, were both fought with American conscript armies. If your soldiers are slaves, with a slave's mentality, then their own officers won't care about their lives, and neither will the politicians. If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.

IF you have the brains god gave a gnat, if you're a New England transplant West Texas williwaw, all bets are off

An Army should be a highly trained, well-equipped and well-motivated arm of Professional Diplomacy, whose mission is vital to the nation's survival. To treat it as some sort of compulsory two year summer camp for wayward youth insults our youth, denigrates our Army and endangers our country. The same maxim applies to any other function you might apply the Universal Slavery to. If its important enough for government to do it at all, it deserves better than slave labor to do it.

The United States DEFEATED the NVA & The Viet Cong in the field. The U.S. military never lost an engagement over company level. The Christmas '72 bombing let the North's government know exactly what the U.S. could do anytime it wanted & it scared the piss out of them.

Despite this, we lost the war sure as we were there. WE never had a clue of what victory would look like, making achieving victory a bit difficult to achieve. We had such a bad taste in our mouth that when the NVA came across the border in '75, we wouldn't even fly air support missions as the North hit the ARVN with more armor than the Germans used to invade France.

The draft, as it was run for Viet Nam, was a disaster. Too many deferments, too many ways to spit the hook, too little consequence for dodging the draft.

Universal military service won't work. Universal NATIONAL Service might, as long as it truly universal and there is a decent pay-off at the end. See the ASB thread on this subject for more detailed discussions on this idea.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

Vietnam is a fine example of why you shouldn't have a draft, or any other kind of Universal Slavery. If you're maintaining a huge army, you'll tend to use it. Korea and Vietnam, major wars just ten years apart, were both fought with American conscript armies. If your soldiers are slaves, with a slave's mentality, then their own officers won't care about their lives, and neither will the politicians. If your soldiers are expensive and hard to get you don't throw them about just anywhere.
.

I don´t think it´s slavery or identiture if (full-class) citizens are called up to do a military service- rather the other way, the army doesn´t self-segregate itself with officers coming from "service families" and recruits from the lower levels of society with comparably little contact with the rest of society, and what is important in a democratic society- voters.

If a professional soldier is killed in war, people are IMO much more given to take it as a professional risk, while draftees in body bags agitate the population because basically every family could be affected.

So a conscription based army is rather more inflexibly used and has a certain trade-off between efficiency (lesser routine by the individual serviceman) and human potential (numbers, but also people a professional army would never get their hands on)