Abolishing or shortening mandatory military service? When?

Anyone have any idea if mandatory service might actually get scrapped soon?

I’m probably heading out to do my service this fall—likely civilian service—so I was wondering if there are any signs that the draft might be abolished or even just shortened in the near future. That would be pretty ideal 😁. If there's any hope, maybe I could push things back for a bit 🙂.
I guess how much luck I'll have seeing them scrap it right after I finish my own stint 😬

Just go serve your time whenever you feel like it. It's pretty much a given that they aren't getting rid of it or even shortening it anytime soon. All those announcements over the last decade—maybe five or six of them? Just pure talk. At best, it's just some politician in D.C. trying to score points... total self-inflicted wounds if you ask me. The earliest this could actually happen is if there’s a massive shift in power during the next election and someone finally has the guts to propose it seriously. And even then, once it passes, it'll take another year or two to actually implement. Like I said, don't hold your breath... it's not happening anytime soon.

@ slyrider16: Thanks for getting back to me. That's pretty much what I was hoping for.

@shadowfalcon33: 🙂 maybe you should just stay quiet if you don't have anything useful to add

shadowfalcon33 said:🙂

Seriously, what's your deal?

I suspect we won't be seeing any budget cuts anytime soon, let alone a total repeal.

an American mathematician said:? what's your issue?

This is the second time you've asked me that. A projection?

Kate Lopez said:@shadowfalcon33: 🙂 this is you when you have nothing smart to contribute

Talk about being called out. 🤣

Kate Lopez said:Honestly, the best move is just to sign up for active duty and get it all over with. It’s easily the most straightforward path.

Given how long it takes, I think that's definitely the simplest way to handle it... Besides, it doesn't really have anything to do with how military service functioned back before the 90s.

There is talk about phasing out the draft entirely, since modern warfare doesn't rely on massive armies filled with reservists anymore, but then again, a reform of that scale comes with a heavy price tag.

If we’re following that line of reasoning, we don't even need actual soldiers in modern warfare
we could just let kids sit around playing video games all day, and they can be the ones remotely operating the little drones and fighter jets from some base somewhere far across the ocean...
by that same logic, there's absolutely no need for commercial airline pilots, or hell, even bus drivers

I know plenty of guys who act like absolute tough guys until it's actually time to serve their mandatory military duty. Honestly, wouldn't it be better if people like that were sent to work in remote rural towns doing manual labor for at least double the required term, just so they could learn what it actually means to give back to the country? Isn't the whole point of having an army to maintain peace rather than looking for fights? After all, there are still so many militant groups and different nations in the world that don't share our values and would jump at the chance to invade us if they ever got the opportunity—just look at what happened about 10 or 15 years ago. Relying solely on a professional military isn't the answer either, because in a worst-case scenario, even regular civilians end up being pulled into the conflict anyway.

That’s why I really think we should stop acting like six months of service is some irreversible waste of life. From what I see, about 95% of those fulfilling their service end up just sitting around watching TV or playing video games; they aren't exactly out there doing anything "productive," right? On top of that, you have to consider how many people serving their terms end up becoming direct competition for actual job seekers, simply because the government can hire them for much less than a private citizen.

If you really sit down and think about it, this type of civilian service might actually be doing more harm to our society than if it didn't exist at all.

If there was actually any common sense left in the brass, they could have easily used civilians—or more accurately, unarmed personnel—to fill plenty of roles in the military
Think about it: cooks, warehouse clerks, laundry staff, heavy equipment operators, assistants to the officers' wives...
All of those jobs can be done without ever touching a weapon, which means you wouldn't even have to deal with anyone throwing up a conscientious objector excuse
But let’s be real here; the whole point of this setup is clearly to strip people of their ability to defend themselves, leaving them in a state where they couldn't even put up a fight against a slap in the face

Threads like this always spiral into some huge debate about whether we even need a military at all, but whatever—it’s entertaining. 😁

Some people will argue the US needs a massive standing army because you never know which neighbor might decide to jump us in a few years. Others say there's zero chance anyone attacks and we should just downsize everything to a better-equipped police force and Coast Guard to save cash. That's the real kicker—money. You can't have a big, strong military without a powerhouse economy. Maybe you can pull it off for a little while, but long-term? Not gonna happen.

If you ask me, the American economy right now couldn't handle an army of 50,000 or more. If we want to keep our defense spending under 2.5% of the GDP, it's hard to see an army topping 20,000 people. But honestly, that's fine. Salaries are what really bleed the budget dry, and as living standards go up, those costs just climb. What we actually need is to run some serious studies on long-term threats. Instead of this huge standing army, we should have a tiny core of professionals who get supplemented by mobilized citizens if things ever actually go south. Of course, in that scenario, we'd need some kind of periodic mandatory training—like an intense two-week course every decade or so. That would mean having 10,000 people trained over a year, or basically just 400 at a time during those two weeks. Rather than paying for a whole damn barracks full of cooks and extra staff, we could just have maybe two training camps that ACTUALLY work 24/7... and we could afford that. Then, if war breaks out, those people get called up. (The infrastructure for an extra 150,000 infantrymen would already need to be there, obviously, since you can't build it in a couple of weeks once mobilization starts.)

goldengull3 said:Given how long it takes, I think that's definitely the easiest way to go... And honestly, it doesn't really have anything to do with having served in the military before 1990.

The draft is actually supposed to be phased out anyway, since modern warfare doesn't really need massive armies full of reservists, but a reform like that just costs a lot of money.

Well, listening to goldengull3 and the rest of you 🙂 , I get it—it's 6 months instead of 9 😬 . I've been "studying" for a while now and I should probably finish up by the end of the year, so I was thinking about doing that civilian service option in the meantime and maybe knocking out some remaining exams. From what my friends tell me, regular active duty is basically the same as my "studying," so I don't really want to waste another six months just sitting around (that's what people say about the military right now, that maybe only one month actually counts toward your service, and the other five are just a waste of time).
I'm honestly kind of torn: go active duty since it's three months shorter, or do the civilian thing and take my exams at the same time? I wouldn't even mind serving, really. It's just that I see it as a total waste of time because people say it's a complete mess over there. And I'm getting a bit tired of all that already 😁 . So, yeah, that's my dilemma. I guess I just need to weigh everything and figure out what works best for what I need 😎

p.s.
Obviously, summer is off the table for both options!!! I have to work my summer job in the service industry 😬

slyrider16 said:In my view, the American economy simply cannot sustain a military force of 50,000 people or more. If we intend to keep our defense spending below 2.5% of the GDP, it’s highly unlikely that such a force would even exceed 20,000 personnel.

Iraq, along with many preceding examples, has demonstrated that massive conscript armies are essentially senseless. Modern technology is far too complex for amateurs; even a few seconds of advantage held by professionals using basic equipment is enough to secure a strategic edge on the battlefield.

Furthermore, let us consider that the US has never mobilized more than roughly 190,000 people even during its most intense periods of conflict—which is less than 5% of the population. The strategic objective should be to maintain a small, highly trained professional military adhering to NATO standards, capable of rapid reinforcement through reservists (while still allowing for volunteer service). Personally, I believe we should also maintain a National Guard to handle the perennial issue of monitoring our extensive borders in the event of unrest in neighboring regions, and that should suffice.

Should someone lose their mind again in the future, additional manpower can be prepared quickly. Because of arms control agreements, which limit weapon counts for everyone in the neighborhood, and because officers from neighboring states have broad inspection rights (for instance, our officers checking on Mexico, and theirs checking on us), such aggressive behavior would be detected promptly.

And yet—if the goal is integration within NATO, they demand a professional force ready for international operations; they have no interest in amateurs. As for defense funding, it will likely remain right where it is now—there simply isn't the money for more.

Kate Lopez said:I find myself facing a bit of a dilemma: should I opt for active duty since it’s three months shorter, or go the civilian route and just try to knock out some exams on the side? Honestly, serving wouldn't be an issue for me personally. My main hesitation is that it feels like a massive waste of time given how disorganized everything is over there—it's a complete circus, according to what I hear. And frankly, I've had quite enough of that kind of chaos lately 😁. So, those are my thoughts. It's all a matter of weighing the options to figure out what actually aligns with my goals and needs 😎
.

Even in active duty, you'll have time to study once basic training wraps up, and they typically grant time off for exams. If that's the only factor, I’d take the three-month shortcut any day.

Peter Jones3 said:So, please don't claim that six months of military service is a total waste of time—especially since I know 95% of people doing civilian service will just be watching TV, playing video games, or otherwise wasting their lives instead of doing anything "productive."

You're dead wrong. I worked my civilian service eight hours a day, from start to finish—not counting the standard time off you get, like vacation or whatever it's called

Roger Palmer said:You’re way off base. I handled civilian duty from start to finish, working eight-hour shifts every single day—not counting the standard time off you get, like vacation or whatever that’s called

Fine, but how many years have you been at it?

It's getting scrapped. Everything should be squared away by New Year's.

Atlas said:Fine, but you're one—out of how many?

Out of how many... Well, I guess if I'm just one out of four, then sure, that's 25%. But for me, it was 100%.

Walter Myers4 said:it’ll be abolished, they should have it sorted by New Year's.

Can you explain that a bit? Where are you getting that from?