this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025

96 points (98.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27842 readers

1248 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

What's your opinion on mandatory military service? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This question was inspired by a post on lemmy.zip about lowering the minimum age to purchase firearms in the US, and a lot of commeters brought up military service and training as a benchmark to normal civilians, and how if guns would be prevalent, then firearm training should be more common.

For reference, I live in the USA, where the minimum age to join the military is 18, but joining is, for the most part, optional. I also know some friends that have gone through the military, mostly for college benefits, and it has really messed them up. However, I have also met some friends from south korea, where I understand military service is mandatory before starting a more normal career. From what I've heard, military service was treated more as a trade school, because they were never deployed, in comparison to American troops.

I just wanted to know what the broader Lemmy community thought about mandatory military service is, especially from viewpoints outside the US.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

[continued from parent]

The security of Panama, the Caribbean, the continental United States, and Alaska including the Aleutians, Hawaii, and Northeastern Brazil were the primary concerns emphasized in Rainbow Four.

The Panama Canal is a strategic weak point for the US, as it controls communication between the major US population centers on the West Coast and East Coast. This was especially true at that point in time, when less overland transport capacity was made use of for domestic transport, and more shipping. A major goal of any adversary would be to sever the US ability to traverse the Panama Canal, so that they could degrade US logistics. If you look at the interwar Fleet Problems conducted by the US, one involved the simulated opposing force managing to sabotage a US battleship traversing the Panama Canal, to sink it in the canal and render it unusable for a significant length of time.

The Caribbean is a potential staging point for foreign forces. Same for Northeastern South America.

Alaska and Hawaii are less-important, though they facilitate control over the Pacific, especially given more-limited ship ranges at the time.

The United States, it was assumed by war planners, would endeavor to adjust disputes with Japan in order to forestall the entrance of that country into the conflict. When the Japanese did enter the conflict, U.S. war planners anticipated that it would probably first seize the Philippines and Guam, as well as launch submarine attacks and surface raids against U.S. communications to Hawaii, Alaska and the Western Coast of Latin America. War planners also anticipated that the financial and industrial resources of the United States would be devoted to increasing at the maximum rate our relative strength particularly in naval, air and mechanized forces. Organized sabotage, industrial strikes and other efforts to hinder this mobilization of resources was expected. War planners also noted that as the U.S. relative strength increased, it would gradually extend American control of the seas into the Western Pacific and the Eastern Atlantic. Rainbow Four plan was also significant in that war planners hinted at United States military operations in Western Africa.

My guess here is that once the US gained sea control, it probably aims to do basically the reverse of what it was concerned about the Axis doing to it -- work up the coast of Africa to invasion staging points into Europe. The fight up the coast of Africa, which has poor logistical infrastructure, favors whoever has naval control, since they can make use of shipping.

The joint mission of the U.S. Military under Rainbow Four was “insuring the security of Continental UNITED STATES, ALASKA, OAHU, PANAMA, THE CARIBBEAN AREA, and NORTHEASTERN BRAZIL, to prevent the violation of the letter or the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine in all the territory of the WESTERN HEMISPHERE” and to “extend military pressure to the WESTERN PACIFIC, the EASTERN ATLANTIC, and WESTERN AFRICA in order to defeat enemy aggression and enable the UNITED STATES to impose terms favorable to itself in the eventual peace settlement.”417 The joint tasks of the U.S. Army and Navy under Rainbow Four were to establish U.S. sovereignty over British, French, Dutch and Danish possessions in the Western Hemisphere. These territories also included Greenland, Newfoundland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad, Tobago, British Guiana, British Honduras, St. Pierre, Miquelon, La Guadeloupe, La Martinique, French Guiana, Curacao, Aruba, and Suriname in the Atlantic, plus the Gilbert, Ellice, and Line Islands as well as Western Samoa, Pitcairn and the Tuamotu Islands in the Pacific.418 Another task of Rainbow Four was to insure the security of the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Area.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy was to establish control over the Western Atlantic while the U.S. Army and Marines insured the security of Northeastern Brazil and prevented a violation of the Monroe Doctrine in all the American republics not included in the Caribbean theatre. Over time the United States was to extend American control into the North Atlantic and to defend the North Atlantic Coastal zone, which included Newfoundland, St. Pierre, Miquelon and Greenland. Also, the United States was to control and protect all friendly shipping within this zone and to extend U.S. military pressure into the Eastern Atlantic and Western Africa. The United States was also to defend the Southern Coastal Frontier which included the Bahamas and Bermuda as an outlying U.S. naval base. In the Pacific, the U.S. Navy was to establish American control over the Eastern Pacific and to defend the Pacific Coastal zone, which included the Pacific Coast of the United States and Alaska, including the Kodiak and Unalaska Islands, as well as to control and protect shipping in this zone.425 A key goal in the Pacific was to hold Oahu Island as a main outlying naval base and to protect shipping in the waters around the Hawaiian Islands. A more difficult goal in the Pacific was to hold the entrance to Manila Bay in order to deny it to enemy naval forces, a nearly hopeless task which had long been doubted by war planners.

Manilla Bay was a useful naval base; slowing or preventing capture would delay Japanese advance. In the event, Fort Drum managed to hold out for some months.

But not so as to get lost in the details, the "big picture" goals were to prevent and delay an enemy from being able to conduct a land invasion of the US to buy time for the US to do things like train soldiers and build naval capacity, and to retain US domestic logistical capabilities. The belief that the US would have the ability to delay an invasion force helps mitigate the need to have a large number of soldiers pre-trained.

[continued in child]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

[continued from parent]

As to the firearms issue, the US has a large number of privately-owned firearms; the next-closest country in per-capita firearms possession has about half the number the US does in per-capita terms. Based on Small Arms Survey numbers, the American public has enough firearms in private arsenals to -- if all of the firearms in all of the arsenals of all of the militaries in the world vanished tomorrow, along with all of the firearms in all of the arsenals in all of the law enforcement agencies in the world, replace them them on a one-for-one basis, then give a firearm to every man, woman, and child in the UK, and then still have millions left over. So in a emergency situation, it's probably likely that the US could get enough armed, albeit untrained, militia on short notice to slow an invasion down -- there's that Red Dawn scenario.

It's important to note that these are not identical to those military firearms. A substantial chunk are handguns, for example, which are considerably inferior to assault rifles...but there are a lot of firearms out there.

There haven't been a whole lot of scenarios where the mainland US has either been invaded or seriously been considered as a target of invasion, so getting solid assessments from foreign militaries as to impact of such a militia is somewhat difficult.

The War of 1812 is maybe the best example, was fought against the British Empire at a time when the US was much weaker, militarily, than the British Empire. In this scenario, a number of battles were fought using militia. In general, the militia performed very poorly when sent on expeditionary forces into what is now Canada; the war was very unpopular, the most-unpopular in US history, and did not want to fight. There are some defensive battles that went poorly for the US, like the Siege of Detroit, where British forces successfully bluffed US defenders into a surrender. On the other hand, there are also some of those that went very well, like the Battle of New Orleans, where a force consisting of a small number of US federal soldiers and a bunch of militia, volunteers and even some pirates fought off a larger attack from British regular forces (albeit that some of those were not infantry).

Germany did have some people spend a while pre-World War I considering invasion of the US, leveraging Germany's superior naval power; establishing German bases in Caribbean countries as a staging point was considered to facilitate this. It wasn't judged to be practical.

In World War I, Germany attempted to get Mexico to invade and annex part of the US, which would distract the US from Europe, drawing forces away and permitting the German military a free hand there. The Mexican government had the Mexican military conduct an evaluation of an invasion and annexation. The Mexican military said that it wasn't practical, in part because of the large number of privately-owned firearms, so at least one military has conducted a formal assessment and considered the private arsenals to be another substantial factor in invasion viability:

Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a military commission to assess the feasibility of the Mexican takeover of their former territories contemplated by Germany.[19] The generals concluded that such a war was unwinnable for the following reasons:

Mexico was in the midst of a civil war, and Carranza's position was far from secure. (Carranza himself was later assassinated in 1920.) Picking a fight with the United States would have prompted the U.S. to support one of his rivals.

The United States was far stronger militarily than Mexico was. Even if Mexico's military forces had been completely united and loyal to a single government, no serious scenario existed under which it could have invaded and won a war against the United States. Indeed, much of Mexico's military hardware of 1917 reflected only modest upgrades since the Mexican-American War 70 years before, which the U.S. had won.

The German government's promises of "generous financial support" were very unreliable. It had already informed Carranza in June 1916 that it could not provide the necessary gold needed to stock a completely independent Mexican national bank.[20] Even if Mexico received financial support, it would still need to purchase arms, ammunition, and other needed war supplies from the ABC nations (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile), which would strain relations with them, as explained below.

Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win a conflict against the United States and to reclaim the territories in question, it would have had severe difficulty conquering and pacifying a large English-speaking population which had long enjoyed self-government and was better supplied with arms than were most other civilian populations.[19]

Other foreign relations were at stake. The ABC nations had organized the Niagara Falls peace conference in 1914 to avoid a full-scale war between the United States and Mexico over the United States occupation of Veracruz. Mexico entering a war against the United States would strain relations with those nations.

One can also look at some analogs, like General Henri Guisan in Switzerland aiming to deter the invasion by Nazi Germany -- Operation Tannenbaum -- during World War II via leveraging its armed militia. That wasn't likely exactly the same scenario that the US would face; Switzerland just needed to make Switzerland sufficiently unpalatable and time-consuming to defeat that Germany would not invade when it had other enemies to worry about, not itself to defeat an invasion or slow it sufficiently for other military activities to be performed. But it's an example where it was considered to be relatively-important by a military.

So I think that civilian firearm possession making invasion more difficult is probably a factor, but very much not the primary factor in the eyes of the US military in not needing mandatory military service, if one looks at what US war planning has included -- rather, it's US air and naval strength making any kind of a rapid invasion of the US very difficult, and thus meaning that the US doesn't have the same critical need to have a lot of people pre-trained in infantry tactics.

And there's a cost to that mandatory military service. The time spent in the military is time spent not doing other things -- learning skills in other fields, producing things, etc. You're asking for something like -- depending upon country -- six months of every male's labor. It may be a cost that you want to pay if you don't have a great alternative, but it's not free.

I'd also add, though I do not think that this is the major consideration behind most countries that do do mandatory military service, that having pre-trained infantry can be helpful in an offensive role (or at least defending allies). War Plan Rainbow Five did not expect that the US could conduct major land operations in Europe for an extended period of time; it would need to build training camps and train soldiers. At the outbreak of World War II, the US had a very small army by European standards, smaller than Portugal's. War Plan Rainbow Five leaked to the US press, Nazi Germany did an evalution and concluded that the US could indeed not intervene in Europe with land forces for some months (though they may have already had a pretty good idea just from looking at US capabilities at the time and relying on their own estimates as to training time). So there is some utility outside of just defending oneself. But I think that for the US, as with most countries, the major factor deciding whether mandatory military service is necessary is the need to defend oneself in land warfare on short notice, and as things stand, the US probably won't face a scenario where that is necessary.