Mandatory service keeps the country safe

The argument

Mandatory national service ensures a steady stream of citizens protecting and serving the nation. The advantage of a requirement over a volunteer system is that it does not depend on how appealing service happens to look in a given year: numbers are guaranteed rather than recruited, which means capacity is available before it is needed rather than assembled once a crisis has already begun. This keeps the nation safe in times of crisis and keeps threats at bay. Deterrence works through the same mechanism. If the national services were to have shortages, other nations could view that as a weakness and cause war or conflict, because a state that visibly cannot field enough people is a state whose commitments are cheap to test. Keeping national services well stocked with citizens ensures the safety of the nation by removing that invitation before it arises, so the capacity does its most valuable work in the conflicts it prevents rather than the ones it fights. The second effect is internal, and it follows from who serves rather than how many. The aspect of shared experience and patriotism that mandatory national service provides also keeps the country safe from internal strife and civil war. A requirement that applies to everyone puts citizens of different regions, classes and backgrounds into the same institution at the same age, working toward a common task — which is the most reliable way a society has of building attachments that cut across the divisions along which it might otherwise fracture. Mandatory service also instills responsibility and maturity in citizens, which would help keep the country safe and thriving, and it promotes a love for the country and an appreciation for what it offers. Mandatory service therefore keeps the country safe by supplying the nation with citizens for a fast and effective response to military threats. It also prevents internal conflict and civil war. Lastly, it creates bonds between citizens and a nationwide sense of respect and maturity that would keep the country thriving.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Mandatory service puts countless lives at risk without rhyme or reason. Young people are the future of the country and putting them at risk for mandatory national service is senseless and not smart for the long term. The risks for mandatory national service requirements do not outweigh the benefits.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Modern deterrence does not rest on headcount. Capability, technology, alliances and readiness matter more, and conscript forces are typically shorter-serving and less specialised than professional ones — which is why many states with conscription have moved away from it rather than towards it. [Rejecting P2] Shared service can build solidarity and can equally transmit division. Conscription has historically been a major source of civil conflict, from draft riots to the mass protests of the Vietnam era, so the premise selects one of two well-documented outcomes and treats it as the only one. [Rejecting C] The conclusion claims necessity from premises that establish possible benefits at most. It also never weighs the costs: the economic loss of removing an entire cohort from work and study, and the physical and psychological risks imposed on people who did not choose them.