On the other hand, that may be why the Army let staff members with fire extinguishers keep them out of Parliament. It’s a lot harder to get consent for a coup from the military if the rank and file closely resemble the people instead of a separate class.
Not necessarily. By making the Army everyone, you also make the Army no one. As in, there is no separate class. Contrast this with the US where soldiers are held in high regard, and most volunteers come from military families and rural destitute people. Both of which are disconnected from normal society for their own reasons. Then they live in an insular community for at least 4 years, longer if they stay in. And they’re welcome to stay for at least a decade without becoming an NCO.
A 2 year conscription by comparison means you have a constantly rotating force that reflects society. It’s harder to send to war because it could be anyone’s kids, and it’s harder to use against the people because that requires them to fight against their friends. And if the rotating force idea is kept, then it also requires tacit knowledge that what you do today sets the standard for what’s done against you tomorrow.
Different topic a little, but I think a compulsory year or two of service is good for a society.
That said, nations that do it tend to always make it military, when at minimum, there should be a societal service/peace core option, and preferably that should be the common option taken. (help build homeless housing, soup kitchens, etc)
Here in the US, we aren’t a society. We have a sociopathic culture we try to reframe as being “ruggedly individual” aka free to die in the gutter alone. Empathy is a bad word here and our elite’s children go to different schools than our people. National compulsory service might buy some social buy in.
But we’d rather work against one another in a race to the bottom than lift each other up as a people.
I hope this can make realize South Koreans how much stupid mandatory draft is
On the other hand, that may be why the Army let staff members with fire extinguishers keep them out of Parliament. It’s a lot harder to get consent for a coup from the military if the rank and file closely resemble the people instead of a separate class.
The whole point of the draft is to turn people into soldier and a separate class.
Not necessarily. By making the Army everyone, you also make the Army no one. As in, there is no separate class. Contrast this with the US where soldiers are held in high regard, and most volunteers come from military families and rural destitute people. Both of which are disconnected from normal society for their own reasons. Then they live in an insular community for at least 4 years, longer if they stay in. And they’re welcome to stay for at least a decade without becoming an NCO.
A 2 year conscription by comparison means you have a constantly rotating force that reflects society. It’s harder to send to war because it could be anyone’s kids, and it’s harder to use against the people because that requires them to fight against their friends. And if the rotating force idea is kept, then it also requires tacit knowledge that what you do today sets the standard for what’s done against you tomorrow.
Different topic a little, but I think a compulsory year or two of service is good for a society.
That said, nations that do it tend to always make it military, when at minimum, there should be a societal service/peace core option, and preferably that should be the common option taken. (help build homeless housing, soup kitchens, etc)
Here in the US, we aren’t a society. We have a sociopathic culture we try to reframe as being “ruggedly individual” aka free to die in the gutter alone. Empathy is a bad word here and our elite’s children go to different schools than our people. National compulsory service might buy some social buy in.
But we’d rather work against one another in a race to the bottom than lift each other up as a people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_Miseducation