What are the positives and negatives of National Service?

[Saddler]

If you have an opinion, please answer the following two questions only.

What is negative about National Service?

What is advantageous about National Service?

[Rupert_Baehr]

The declared purpose of National Service was to provide a pool of trained (or at least partially-trained) troops to supplement the Regular Army. In practice, it reduced the unemployment figures and gave out-of-work people something to do.

 

So, in answer to your questions:

 

Negative: It doesn't help the Armed Forces. National Service training does not produce combat-ready troops but it would tie up professional soldiers who have enough to do without playing nursemaid to chavs and would put additional strains on already-stretched budgets.

 

Advantageous. No advantage to the Armed Forces, some (limited) advantage to the government because it would reduce the jobless figures - but sending the unemployed off to do degrees in underwater basket weaving does that and you don't have to pay them any money. - Indeed, you can get them to pay.

[I1L2T3]

Do we really want to turn millions of disadvantaged feral youth into trained killers?

[andyofborg]

Do we really want to turn millions of disadvantaged feral youth into trained killers?

 

there aren't millions of them and for some, at least, it may be the making of them.

 

though, on balance, it's probably a bad idea

[Saddler]

So the answers to the two questions deterioated after the first post.

Please respond to the post.

Thanks

[Doingalright]

The declared purpose of National Service was to provide a pool of trained (or at least partially-trained) troops to supplement the Regular Army. In practice, it reduced the unemployment figures and gave out-of-work people something to do.

 

So, in answer to your questions:

 

Negative: It doesn't help the Armed Forces. National Service training does not produce combat-ready troops but it would tie up professional soldiers who have enough to do without playing nursemaid to chavs and would put additional strains on already-stretched budgets.

 

Advantageous. No advantage to the Armed Forces, some (limited) advantage to the government because it would reduce the jobless figures - but sending the unemployed off to do degrees in underwater basket weaving does that and you don't have to pay them any money. - Indeed, you can get them to pay.

 

Weather or not it helps the armed forces is debatable, but on the whole it benefits those doing the national service, they see the world, and(hopefully)become better, more responsible people.

[algy]

Perhaps we're hung up on what National Service means. We're assuming it's what happened up to the early 60's. Young men were trained as soldiers and sent off to defend the last gasps of the Empire.

National Service today needn't involve weapons etc. It could be a national 'labour corps', carrying out work of national importance, such as the building of the flood defences the government have cut, and in the process learning some skills as well as discipline, regard for others, teamwork etc.

[SiSiSi]

What has Jason got to say?

[just_words]

Do we really want to turn millions of disadvantaged feral youth into trained killers?

 

I technically I agree with that...

 

However, cadets was very good for me and probably gave me the sense of community and civil duty that kept me out of any real trouble.

 

But there have been times i've had to spend time with some gangs and such, and oh my some discipline and training would have stopped me laughing so hard at their stupidity!

[Bassman62]

Negative: It doesn't help the Armed Forces. National Service training does not produce combat-ready troops but it would tie up professional soldiers who have enough to do without playing nursemaid to chavs and would put additional strains on already-stretched budgets.

Are you saying that no National Servicemen served in Korea and other trouble spots in the late forties/sixties, because I knew people who did.