This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Should Japan start mandatory military service

Should Japan start mandatory military service?

  • yes

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • no

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • other (please explain in the thread)

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7

Davey

先輩
Contributor
Joined
5 Feb 2005
Messages
7,694
Reaction score
627
Just something I was talking about with a friend of mine yesterday. I have never served the army so I don't know well what the pro's and con's are. But just to give my opinion and hear others I decided to open this thread.

I think it would be good for Japan to start mandatory military service because it will learn various skills such as discipline and leadership (something I think Japan is missing), and it will make them more patriotic (I'm sure Hashimoto would like to see that). If a war or conflict would break out they have more power themselves, and also if another (which will happen) earthquake or tsunami would happen there would be more people to help that have certain skills.

Although I think that 2 years might be too long, even a basic 6 months course might help to start with.

Anyway, I am looking forward to hearing your opinions regarding this matter.
 
Mandatory army is evil.

There are many countries where military service is mandatory, Israeli, for example, there are both males and females are serving; in Russia - males only. You know, russian military code states: serving in army is mandatory privilege of every russian citizen. The problem is: many peoples are trying to escape that 'privilegy'. There are many reasons, for example, religious, cultural, demographic or economical. What will You do with those? Will put them to a jail, as in Russia, or revoke their citizenship as in Israeli? I do not want to speak about common drawbacks of serving in army, they are well known and discussed many times in every society.

IMHO, army should be professional, and there should be government supported selfdefence forces on voluntary basis. Some mandatory military education in schools is very usefull too.
 
ewww said:
Some mandatory military education in schools is very usefull too.
Click to expand...

If schools could teach those kind of things it would be great... but with all these monster parents, scared teachers, and weak board of educations....
 
There is a Constitutional problem with your idea, Davey. Many say that even the current system and level violates Article 9.
 
Change the constitution...

I know they can't just change it, but it has been years since the WW2... Should Holland have an Article 9 as well for the things they have done 300 ~ 400 years ago?
 
Sure they can change it....if they want to.
 
Oh god Japan installing conscription would have a disastrous effect on the region.

I think every single nation involved in the area would be firmly against it (including, and especially the USA)
If Japan increased it's defence spend by such a drastic amount.
China, India & Russia would all have to respond.

The result would be more weapons and destructive force aimed at Japan than ever before in it's history.

Also I am not sure that what Japan as a society really needs is MORE nationalism.

Also The japanese army is vastly behind in terms of tactics and experience.
anyone joining the Russian, US, British, hell even the Dutch army
Is going to be trained and mentored by people who have real experience.
Who have put the training through the test of people trying to kill you.
Who have used the tactics and equipment into practice, under fire.

The army as a machine have learnt what works and what does not work against modern warfare tactics.
The Japanese infantry is pretty much still running off the WW2 play book.

Not to mention that Japan has no SF experience to speak of at all.

A better idea would be compulsory service, but why not citizen related.
They do something similar in Germany.

I see no reason why Holland should implement an article 9.
They have never tried to invade people (recently )
And are part of NATO and the European Defence force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Compulsory service" by another name is "involuntary servitude", which is another name for "slavery". The power of the state in a free society should be used to protect and maintain the freedoms and liberty of its citizens, not to abrogate them.
 
Mike Cash said:
"Compulsory service" by another name is "involuntary servitude", which is another name for "slavery". The power of the state in a free society should be used to protect and maintain the freedoms and liberty of its citizens, not to abrogate them.
Click to expand...

I think the underlying idea is that in a democracy ("rule of the people"), those people should be made an intrinsic part of preserving and protecting their freedom, which is the reason for democratic institutions such as political elections, jury systems, and also compulsory military service. I wouldn't go so far as to call serving the greater good "slavery". Then what about compulsory education and taxation?

Apart from the constitutional, geopolitical and historical concerns voiced here I totally agree with Davey: seeing those young herbivores here setting their dyed hair on the train while reading fashion magazines, I too believe that a touch of Sparta wouldn't be totally out of place.

I tend to view my own year of mandatory military service as a "school of life": how to survive an institutionalised kindergarten controlled by armed men ranked by the number of stars on their epaulettes. And to learn to follow those men's asinine commands by swallowing a lot of your pride and sanity.
 
I was addressing the mention of proposed mandatory civilian service. I don't have a problem with mandatory military service.
 
Sorry Mike, I misread your post. Still, I believe that for reasons of social fairness and equality compulsory military service also necessitates compulsory civil service (for conscientious objectors).
 
Conscientious objectors are certainly a special case. In America they have typically been offered the choice of imprisonment or a military service role in which they would not be called upon to kill anyone....although they may find themselves in combat situations. There have been conscientious objectors who served with distinction as battlefield medics, for example.

In a proposed mandatory military service scheme they could still be trained for non-combat positions in the military.
 
Mandatory Military service is a hard one. Given how many variables there could be, it's really hard for me to given an answer with out having a outline of how said service would work.

Though to be honest, I detest the idea of any country having a military. I do understand that in this day and age it's pretty much mandatory. But, I feel that the founding fathers where right when the suggested the idea of an armed civilian militia instead of an army. One of there biggest fears was that if America where to militarize, the military would be misused. Of course it has been many, many times.
 
It has been pretty much mandatory ever since the advent of civilization.....which seems paradoxical, now that I think about it.

("were"....not "where").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
Should Japan Abolish Kanji?
15 16 17
Replies
403
Views
129K
Master of Time
M
What are some Japanese email services?
Replies
8
Views
94K
Toritoribe
Joining the Japanese Military
2
Replies
31
Views
48K
thomas
  • Sticky
  • Poll Poll
What are your interests for Japan?
24 25 26
Replies
644
Views
244K
thomas
  • Poll Poll
Is Japan a Western country?
15 16 17
Replies
400
Views
176K
Kulern
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…