Sweden restarts the draft. Includes women

Re citizenship, I'm afraid we don't agree. In fact, the idea of having non-citizens as members of your armed forces is probably something I wouldn't accept if I were king. But then if I were king I definitely wouldn't have the unnecessarily jumbo-sized armed forces that the US needs to maintain its empire.

But I can think of many-many good things that aren't military in nature and would amount to valuable service and that young people could be required to take two years off to do, for the reasons pointed out above.

Well, there are a lot of subjects covered here. I'm not sure I agree that compulsory national service is just the same as any other imposition by the government. I'm leery about it but that's the anarchist in me talking.

I guess I wouldn't oppose it for many countries, European countries particularly, but I think I would oppose it in the US, particularly if carried out by Republicans.

But if you were king presumably you'd have SUBJECTS not CITIZENS

Of course it isn't. Each is different in its way. But for the purpose of argument I was making the point that government makes the rules. And if government doesn't, then I guess we throw up our hands and let freaking Proctor&Gamble or General Dynamics make the rules.

Yes, it's an imposition, as are taxes (the French word for taxes being les impôts). But I see a great deal of good that could come of compulsory non-military service, though in Europe possibly there's still a place for military conscription. I'm sure you could give people the choice. There are enough latter-day-cavemen around who would choose military.

If I were king, I wouldn't bloody want cititzens since they might get in the way of my benign dictatorship.

But then if I were king I definitely wouldn't have the unnecessarily jumbo-sized armed forces that the US needs to maintain its empire. - Nono

then you wouldn't be the king of the US. We don't have the option of not having a jumbo-sized armed forces. Granted it could be managed much better, but no matter how you slice it we better be jumbo, because there are still countries who would love to take us out.

All I know is that the world would swing if I were king.

But I see a great deal of good that could come of compulsory non-militaryservice, though in Europe possibly there's still a place for military conscription. I'm sure you could give people the choice. There are enough latter-day-cavemen around who would choose military. - Nono

Cavemen? Are you implying that anyone choosing the military as their mandatory service is a caveman? Maybe in your country. Here in the US, not so much. Let me preach on it: 2/3 of the US draft-age males (18-25) are not even fit for military service. What makes you fit for the military?
1) a high school diploma/pass aptitude test
2) pass a criminal background check
3) meet the physical requirements including body fat percentage and athletic requirements of cardio/strength

and it's not a "two-out-of-three" situation. You need all three to get in. Have a college degree but can't run faster than 17:30 for a two-mile as a 22 year old? No army for you. Run a 5 minute mile but can't do 31 push ups in two minutes? No army for you. Olympic level athlete but have an open bench warrant for a speeding ticket three years ago? No army for you (unless you get it cleared up at your expense first). You get the idea - US military are not the macho dumb bar-room brawling troublemakers that you may envision, we are the complete opposite, statistically and realistically head & shoulders above the average US citizen on every level. But I'm sure you knew that!

Yes, but only within the limited power government is granted.

Dictating how a person spends years of their life is not a legitimate power of government and--here, at least--it would never, ever fly.

There are a lot of possible states between "government can make any rule it cares to" and "we're left at the mercy of the corporations!"

"I didn't have the option of not snatching that old lady's purse, officer. I swear."

Holy shit. What you infer is your freaking lookout, not mine. Look at what I said.

And fella, you could use a few lessons in the quote function. I saw your post only by chance.

That's what they said about the Wright Brothers' machine.

The government can make any rules it wants. They may violate the constitution, they may violate international law, whatever. But until such time as this is found to be the case and the available remedies (if there are any truly available) are exploited, they can do whatever they want.

With luck you'll still be able to vote them out again in a few years. I wonder how long that will last.

Well, strictly speaking all we need to make 'taking us out' instantly suicidal are about 500-1000 nuclear warheads. So it must be that we maintain the jumbo-sized military for...other reasons. I wonder what these could be?

The laws of physics are more cooperative than an angry electorate.

Eh, maybe. But good luck enforcing them. If the federal government passed a national compulsory service law, we'd laugh and tell them to go pound sand. And a court would strike it down pretty damned quick.

They upheld conscription in the past.

The United States military is not "jumbo sized".

No doubt there is going to be replies citing defense budgets which are pretty much meaningless.

Conscription isn't national service. And conscription has been abolished because it was very unpopular. And, again, the question of whether conscription is Constitutional outside of declared war hasn't been definitively answered.

It was unpopular during the Vietnam War.

But probably not for any of the reasons you think it was.

A larger percentage of the U.S personnel who fought in World War Two were conscripted than fought in Vietname.

The downside of conscription is baby-sitting people that don't want to be there. Fifty years ago (when the US had a draft and young people did two years) young people had at least a little respect for authority, and their parents would put a foot up their ass if they didn't. These days if the way high school kids act is any indication, the military would have their hands full to say the least.

Oh? And what would be meaningful in your view?

We should probably form an organization that would make America's kids ready for the military. You guys could call it the Trump Youth.

The most meaningful way would be to answer the following question:

"Is the U.S. military of adequate size to fulfill all of its military commitments and to do so in a way that minimizes not only potential U.S. and allied casualities but enemy casualties as well".

Oh so a totally self-referential definition of jumbo, well, wouldn't want to get in the way of circular reasoning there.

Trump Youth? That said it was very satisfying training my son for the physical part of the army I must say. I even taught my son how to climb a rope! I can't J hook only S hook but you can use either in basic. The only downside in training him was I did a face-plant on asphalt while running at a pretty good clip and bled like a stuffed pig. The takeaway there is velcro beats shoe laces but if you can't get velcro then double/triple tie the shit out of your laces at all times. And his defense lawyer did a great job of making sure he wrapped up his legal loose ends from an incident a few months prior to joining, so my son could focus on his training with two less things (among many things in basic training ) to stress about.

Yes, the bit about the Wright Brothers was just me sticking my tongue out even further than it normally is. I agree that it wouldn't fly in the US and possibly a number of other countries. Indeed, what does fly these days out of the rut we seem stuck in?
I was merely saying what I would do "if I were king". That's Dreamsville. I'd be most astonished if anything like I think society at its best will ever come about. I'd fall straight off my chair.

Well, that rather depends on how you define "national service", i.e. service to the nation or, as I'd put it, to society. In the half-century+ that military conscription existed in France it was called .... "national service", which you may brand euphemistic. Just sayin'.

God knows I'm no militarist. Nor am I a pacifist, however. I'm extremely skeptical about the military in many many ways. It certainly is a true mindfuck for a lot of people. So I'm not for horsewhipping youth into it. The two world wars have come and gone. Now there are nukes. So there isn't time anyway.

And now for two contrasting examples:

"The world is passing through troublesome times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."

(From a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274)

My late stepfather spent WWII in the US Navy. He said there you were on a ship full of one-year wonders and the career types were obviously miffed by this war that had screwed up their nice shiny navy and polluted it with a bunch of civilians temporarily miswearing their sacred uniform.

True. Every generation of people slams the younger generations as being weaker, spoiled, and even depraved.

I'm reminded of IIRC a European visitor to the U.S. a decade or two ago. This visitor had heard all kinds of bad things about American youth. Then they saw on the news about a group of teenage boys at a school who had all had their heads shaved to show solidarity with a classmate who had lost all their hair due to cancer treatments.

And this is not an infrequent occurrence.

The person giving an account of this said that as long as there were young people willing to do that then they had faith in the future.

So do I.

The thing about bashing the younger generation is that generation didn't raise themselves not had a hand in creating the world they came of age to. It wasn't my classmates who begged for participation trophies or for Mom and Dad to escort us everywhere.

(Or harassed the teacher for better grades. That really gives the child a skewed impression of how things ought to work.)

Well said. Though my mother was very neurotic and an incredible worrywart, she never asked where we were going. We lived right along the Niagara Escarpment, which had North America's busiest rail line along the side of it. When I think of the places we went and dumb-dumb things we did, I'm amazed to have survived it all.

A childhood friend (who went on some of those escapades) calls the current batch of parents "the helicopter generation" and thinks they fail to adequately prepare their kids for the big bad world out there. And yes, the shouting parents at Little League baseball and PeeWee hockey .... they obviously consider their kids as extensions of their own egos.
Pretty gross.

When you only have one child it can be very difficult to force yourself not to intervene to assist them or protect them. My wife and I have worked hard to not do that for our daughter. But it is difficult.

I wish we had more kids. I did the best I could do.

It works better if you have sex more than one time.