National Service

Would stop them from going all Victor Meldrew about ****e they've read in the Daily Mail

 

They’re too far gone for that but it might improve their health and save the NHS that they’ve been able to take for granted their whole lives a few quid.

 

After working with French conscripts I'd deffo say no to NS, some people are just not cut out for the job.

 

I can see it happening in the future - the government sending off all of those kids to the arse end of nowhere where they can't complain about things like the NHS going to **** or not being able to afford a house and the like.

Coincidentally there will be big drafts right before elections.

 

Ages of 16-30 should be drafted. It'll make men of them, even though the forces probably don't want them.

 

Or forcing them to do something they don't want to do will make them resent the government and have less respect for the laws of the land?

Why only Males btw?

 

Sheer number of soldiers will be irrelevant in most future combats.

 

If they want to rebel then just cart them of to Afghanistan. Should lose quite a few while we're at it. Females are welcome.

 

Would Jaffa cake Packers be exempt too or just biscuit Packers?

Edit: I wrote this before seeing brb's response... But his response and mine shows there might be some disagreement in who counts as a biscuit packer. It's a grey area.

 

Compulsory service seems a bad idea to me.

1) too expensive. It's just throwing national money away.

2) tomorrow's war will be fought with technology not # of people. Getting tens of thousands of new troops is pointless.

 

Not sure that would actually work.

 

Anyway it's a **** idea mainly in the heads of middle aged plus people who hark back to the 'good old days' when people had manners blah blah ****ing blah...

 

Yeah. Stick a gun in their hands and drop them in Kabul. They love stabbing and killing each other, they'll love it.

 

Already mentioned my thoughts on this, but it seems people automatically think that NS has to mean military combat, when it doesn't. There are loads of civilian jobs in the Army and Navy that provide an opportunity to learn a trade or skill. Also the Army do peace keeping and disaster relief work. The Navy do things like Search and Rescue etc. It's not all about going out and killing people. In fact I'd ensure that people doing national service were not exposed to military campaigns.

Also I'd provide the option of doing service in the NHS, and I'd build in some basic qualifications that young people could earn too. So yes the basic principle of giving some time towards national service I'm all in favour of. As I've mentioned, I think it would give young people some really good key skills to build on.

 

You could also learn a skill or a trade by ... Getting a job instead.

 

Also true. I'd like to see the apprenticeship scheme developed more widely

 

The good old days when their parents and grandparents told them what national service was like.

 

Being in the armed forces brings with it the risk that you could get shot in the face.

Having a caveat that you could be in the forces and never risk being shot in the face probably wouldn’t fly mate.

 

Shoot everyone in the face on their first day.

 

I think it could be done if you specify that people doing their national service didn't engage in combat roles. You should only ever be exposed to military campaigns if you voluntarily sign up to be a soldier. There's loads of non-combat roles in the forces that could still give young people a good set of skills and life experience.

But as I say, I wouldn't specify that people had to go into the forces. They could go into the NHS, or maybe another public sector role. If we ever re-nationalise the key infrastructure industries in the UK, then maybe a year on the railways could be another option. I suppose what I'm describing is more about young people doing some voluntary work/ extended work experience than 'national service' as such.