Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

[The Bread Guy]

Just me, but I think the oldies should be the ones drafted into the next war. 40+ ...

There's a book in there somewhere ....

Old Man's War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FSTO]

Same same.

True on the ROI, but one of my questions is: why is it people suggest young punk ass kids needing a kick in the ass get trained in teamwork, discipline and potential use of up to deadly force in the military, but nobody says they should be trained in teamwork, discipline and potential use of up to deadly force in other protective capacities?

You do know that the punk ass comment was in jest right?

 

[RangerRay]

why is it people suggest young punk ass kids needing a kick in the ass get trained in teamwork, discipline and potential use of up to deadly force in the military, but nobody says they should be trained in teamwork, discipline and potential use of up to deadly force in other protective capacities?

Because most people advocating for mandatory service have never worn the uniform and think military discipline will “sort people out” because of their preconceived notions based on Hollywood stereotypes?

 

[The Bread Guy]

You do know that the punk ass comment was in jest right?

Oh, completely, but there's still the tiniest sliver in many of us (often "of a certain age") who like the idea, am I right

Because most people advocating for mandatory service have never worn the uniform and think military discipline will “sort people out” because of their preconceived notions based on Hollywood stereotypes?

Could be.

Without dissing on cops, who do a HUGE service while almost never dealing with people in a good space, many who want youth toughened up in a military context can't tell me why they wouldn't want those same youth, say, patrolling their streets as cops. That suggests to me they may want youth physically "toughened" (maybe to the point of suffering, as you say about stereotypes) and blindly obedient without, say, the kind of judgement cops have to learn.

You could be bang on RR: there's a lot more judgement needed by most soldiers than most people realize, especially some who might see soldiers as "just cannon fodder."

 

[Eaglelord17]

Because most people advocating for mandatory service have never worn the uniform and think military discipline will “sort people out” because of their preconceived notions based on Hollywood stereotypes?

Most people who advocate for mandatory things for others never did what they want in the first place.

Changing pensions from DB to DC? Fine as long as I can keep my DB, screw the future. Mandatory military service? Fine as long as I am not the one going. Raising retirement age from 20 to 25? Fine as long as I am grandfathered, etc.

I am dead set against conscription. I am all for giving good carrots to encourage service (such as paying for education), but against forcing people. We lived in a free society, part of that is the freedom to make decisions about how you live your life. Forcing people to do things they don’t want to do isn’t right. Not to mention I doubt it would survive a charter challenge. I hated my time in the Navy, and I volunteered. I can’t imagine how bad it would be being forced into it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because most people advocating for mandatory service have never worn the uniform and think military discipline will “sort people out” because of their preconceived notions based on Hollywood stereotypes?

In places like Singapore, even before they start their National Service, they are exposed to the idea early on as part of their schooling and how service is an important part of the Nation and community. If you start National Service, I think that serving and it's importance needs to be taught early on, so it's seen as a duty and not as imposition.

The struggle would be the implementation and growing the program. I suspect it would have to be more of a summer camp with basic training in marching, first aid, map and compass, how to live in the field, and marksmanship and firearm safety with .22cal. You would have to start with a lottery system, taking in only as many as you can realistically train and manage.

Everyone would be subject to the draft from ages 18-50, those that get drafted have some long term obligations, along with tax benefits and job protections. The yearly draft could be divided into a groups for military, civil defense and perhaps public health.

 

[Kilted]

Bumping a necro-thread since it appears the closest to the latest update ....

Survey says: Canadians surveyed like a year of mandatory service for those under 30, but are split re: mandatory military service.

A Year of Service? Canadians – including young adults – embrace the idea of civilian service for those under 30 - Angus Reid Institute

Young adults support giving a year of their life to national service; but it depends on the kind of work August 11, 2025 – Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke last week in Trenton, Ontario to announce what he called a “generational” increase in pay for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. And...

angusreid.org

View attachment 95101
News release also attached, as well as list of questions.

How the survey was done:
View attachment 95104

One year would barely see them fully trained. I think to be effective this would need to be for a period of three-five years. I'm making the assumption that this would be for reserve service, although the NDA would likely need to be strengthened to ensure that people showed up to training.

 

[Kilted]

In places like Singapore, even before they start their National Service, they are exposed to the idea early on as part of their schooling and how service is an important part of the Nation and community. If you start National Service, I think that serving and it's importance needs to be taught early on, so it's seen as a duty and not as imposition.

The struggle would be the implementation and growing the program. I suspect it would have to be more of a summer camp with basic training in marching, first aid, map and compass, how to live in the field, and marksmanship and firearm safety with .22cal. You would have to start with a lottery system, taking in only as many as you can realistically train and manage.

Everyone would be subject to the draft from ages 18-50, those that get drafted have some long term obligations, along with tax benefits and job protections. The yearly draft could be divided into a groups for military, civil defense and perhaps public health.

If there were to be multiple options offered, we could take volunteers first and then use a draft system to fill up the rest of the spots. We could give the option to start as early as 16, but mandatory at 18. Probably would have to get ride of Cadet summer training.

And then there is the element of brining conscripts into a volunteer armed forces.

 

[RangerRay]

One year would barely see them fully trained. I think to be effective this would need to be for a period of three-five years. I'm making the assumption that this would be for reserve service, although the NDA would likely need to be strengthened to ensure that people showed up to training.

I don’t think making fully trained useful soldiers is the point. The point seems to be a make work project for “directionless, aimless youth” to be disciplined and learn life skills(?), with a side benefit of living and working with a socio-economic a geographically diverse group of co-workers.

 

[FJAG]

Readers can decide for themselves if it was a good idea, or not, but the U.S. military draft was in effect from 1940 to 1973.

They got Elvis.

They didn't get Trump.

I am dead set against conscription. I am all for giving good carrots to encourage service (such as paying for education), but against forcing people. We lived in a free society, part of that is the freedom to make decisions about how you live your life. Forcing people to do things they don’t want to do isn’t right. Not to mention I doubt it would survive a charter challenge. I hated my time in the Navy, and I volunteered. I can’t imagine how bad it would be being forced into it.

Sometimes a free society needs protecting. Too often the people needed to defend it aren't prepared to go willingly but can be coerced. It is absolutely right when the survival of the state and the freedom which are so valued is in peril. It would clearly survive a Charter challenge by way of Ch 1 firstly as a valid limitation in a free and democratic society and secondly by a "notwithstanding" provision if required.

My issue with conscription is that the CAF is incapable of the proper management of a reserve system of volunteers so I doubt that they would be capable of managing a conscription system. There you are; my cynicism at work.

One year would barely see them fully trained. I think to be effective this would need to be for a period of three-five years.

That reinforces my views about managing a conscript system. Taking 3 to 5 years of a persons life because that what is considered necessary to make them effective is unconscionable. That's a way to insure that the system will never be instituted. One needs a system that is palatable to the electorate and the government. 3-5 years during peacetime is a non starter.

In a properly managed system of volunteers, reservists and conscripts it should be quite possible to have a portion of the force at a ready state while other portions are developing. It's a question of force design and a training/use program designed to complement the periods of service, to man the available equipment and to mobilize over time.

As I said above, the biggest problem is that our army can't properly design, train and equip an all volunteer force except for low scale peacetime deployments. If, in its present form, you were to add in the need to train, equip and sustain 10-20,000 conscripts per year it would implode. IMHO, it would need to drastically change its attitude and focus, something it hasn't been able to do for decades with its volunteer reservists, so I see little hope for a successful conscript system.

 

[Kilted]

They didn't get Trump.

Sometimes a free society needs protecting. Too often the people needed to defend it aren't prepared to go willingly but can be coerced. It is absolutely right when the survival of the state and the freedom which are so valued is in peril. It would clearly survive a Charter challenge by way of Ch 1 firstly as a valid limitation in a free and democratic society and secondly by a "notwithstanding" provision if required.

My issue with conscription is that the CAF is incapable of the proper management of a reserve system of volunteers so I doubt that they would be capable of managing a conscription system. There you are; my cynicism at work.

That reinforces my views about managing a conscript system. Taking 3 to 5 years of a persons life because that what is considered necessary to make them effective is unconscionable. That's a way to insure that the system will never be instituted. One needs a system that is palatable to the electorate and the government. 3-5 years during peacetime is a non starter.

In a properly managed system of volunteers, reservists and conscripts it should be quite possible to have a portion of the force at a ready state while other portions are developing. It's a question of force design and a training/use program designed to complement the periods of service, to man the available equipment and to mobilize over time.

As I said above, the biggest problem is that our army can't properly design, train and equip an all volunteer force except for low scale peacetime deployments. If, in its present form, you were to add in the need to train, equip and sustain 10-20,000 conscripts per year it would implode. IMHO, it would need to drastically change its attitude and focus, something it hasn't been able to do for decades with its volunteer reservists, so I see little hope for a successful conscript system.

Three to five years of reserve service.

 

[HavokFour]

As I said above, the biggest problem is that our army can't properly design, train and equip an all volunteer force except for low scale peacetime deployments. If, in its present form, you were to add in the need to train, equip and sustain 10-20,000 conscripts per year it would implode. IMHO, it would need to drastically change its attitude and focus, something it hasn't been able to do for decades with its volunteer reservists, so I see little hope for a successful conscript system.

I can possibly see this working if the 1 year mandatory was purely for support roles inside Canada that would also teach skills and trades that could easily be applied to life outside said national service. Then offer an attractive bonus at the end of that 1 year if they sign up for the reserves or fulltime, at which point they receive the relevant (lethal) training for that.

This could possibly allow for accelerated training times for those that sign on after their 1 year, because they're all already partially trained.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So my question is, why is the onus on the CAF to make functioning members of society out of these kids?

Honest question, would it not make sense to throw that intended funding towards improving accessibility for stuff like youth organizations, sports, improving schools, etc?

My experience with conscripts and even with some of the volunteers we receive makes me skeptical that this is the kind of panacea folks think it is.

If we want citizens that have a desire to help their fellow man and live a life of service (in any capacity, not just CAF)... that is formed in the classroom and community centre; not because of a mandatory 1 year in uniform.

 

[Kirkhill]

They didn't get Trump.

Sometimes a free society needs protecting. Too often the people needed to defend it aren't prepared to go willingly but can be coerced. It is absolutely right when the survival of the state and the freedom which are so valued is in peril. It would clearly survive a Charter challenge by way of Ch 1 firstly as a valid limitation in a free and democratic society and secondly by a "notwithstanding" provision if required.

My issue with conscription is that the CAF is incapable of the proper management of a reserve system of volunteers so I doubt that they would be capable of managing a conscription system. There you are; my cynicism at work.

That reinforces my views about managing a conscript system. Taking 3 to 5 years of a persons life because that what is considered necessary to make them effective is unconscionable. That's a way to insure that the system will never be instituted. One needs a system that is palatable to the electorate and the government. 3-5 years during peacetime is a non starter.

In a properly managed system of volunteers, reservists and conscripts it should be quite possible to have a portion of the force at a ready state while other portions are developing. It's a question of force design and a training/use program designed to complement the periods of service, to man the available equipment and to mobilize over time.

As I said above, the biggest problem is that our army can't properly design, train and equip an all volunteer force except for low scale peacetime deployments. If, in its present form, you were to add in the need to train, equip and sustain 10-20,000 conscripts per year it would implode. IMHO, it would need to drastically change its attitude and focus, something it hasn't been able to do for decades with its volunteer reservists, so I see little hope for a successful conscript system.

Further to....

Britain needs more than expensive, breakdown-prone jets to defend itself

The MoD has for too long prioritised advanced kit at the expense of mass

www.telegraph.co.uk

All armed forces need balance and mass. Balance across the tasks you may be told to deliver – from soft power to full war fighting – and mass to ensure coverage and sustainability if you take losses, whether from enemy action or defects.

We must now make “mass” happen.

The issue is that MoD decision-makers have for decades focused on building or buying small numbers of high-tech kit at the expense of mass, the theory being, if they can do “high-end fighting”, they can do everything else.

The problem with this is that the build process for advanced technology often sees platforms get modified, which results in costs spiralling and numbers being cut.

What goes for equipment also goes for people.

The Praetorian Guard only defended the Emperor. Not the empire.

Likewise for the Huskarls. The Fyrd fought the Danes.
And WWs 1 and 2 were fought and won by volunteers and conscripts. Not the three battalions of Regs.

 

[FJAG]

And WWs 1 and 2 were fought and won by volunteers and conscripts. Not the three battalions of Regs.

This is where you and I violently agree.

I favour mass. I favour much equipment, even if not top of the line. I favour a system of a core of professionals leading a mass of trained and equipped reservists with a sizeable volunteer home guard and, if necessary, conscripts.

My argument above is that the CAF, as currently configured, is incapable of organizing itself and supporting a switch to a mass military. It's entirely consumed with its professional its core. I call it RegF masturbation. Case in point - a pay raise was the immediate priority and not increasing the force size and equipping it. The argument is that without that pay raise the size of the force could not be maintained and a quick fix was needed. Bullshit. Case in point two - the army dividing itself back into a RegF and a ResF rather than refining and building on its total force. The upcoming reorganization - assuming it will happen roughly as contemplated - sets the condition where attaining mass will continue to be impossible.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is where you and I violently agree.

I favour mass. I favour much equipment, even if not top of the line. I favour a system of a core of professionals leading a mass of trained and equipped reservists with a sizeable volunteer home guard and, if necessary, conscripts.

My argument above is that the CAF, as currently configured, is incapable of organizing itself and supporting a switch to a mass military. It's entirely consumed with its professional its core. I call it RegF masturbation. Case in point - a pay raise was the immediate priority and not increasing the force size and equipping it. The argument is that without that pay raise the size of the force could not be maintained and a quick fix was needed. Bullshit. Case in point two - the army dividing itself back into a RegF and a ResF rather than refining and building on its total force. The upcoming reorganization - assuming it will happen roughly as contemplated - sets the condition where attaining mass will continue to be impossible.

I was hoping that the instructor's bonus might encourage Regs to be lining up to train thousands of willing youngsters in the summer.

 

[Kilted]

This is where you and I violently agree.

I favour mass. I favour much equipment, even if not top of the line. I favour a system of a core of professionals leading a mass of trained and equipped reservists with a sizeable volunteer home guard and, if necessary, conscripts.

My argument above is that the CAF, as currently configured, is incapable of organizing itself and supporting a switch to a mass military. It's entirely consumed with its professional its core. I call it RegF masturbation. Case in point - a pay raise was the immediate priority and not increasing the force size and equipping it. The argument is that without that pay raise the size of the force could not be maintained and a quick fix was needed. Bullshit. Case in point two - the army dividing itself back into a RegF and a ResF rather than refining and building on its total force. The upcoming reorganization - assuming it will happen roughly as contemplated - sets the condition where attaining mass will continue to be impossible.

What reorganization is that?

 

[FJAG]

What reorganization is that?

The army is currently studying how to organize for the future - roughly for 2040. Advancing with Purpose has, IMHO, run its course. An attempt was made a few years ago with the Force 2025 restructure but that petered out. The following two articles will give you a general understanding:

Modernizing for major combat operations | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

Modernizing in an Interwar Period

There is a tension in the Canadian Army (CA) between resources, structures, capabilities, and tasks. We have been trying to modernize our structures and capabilities since the mid 2010’s to better respond to both the changing character of war, and to better align our tasks and structures.

www.canada.ca

Final decisions have not yet been made and I expect that the very recent election and promises of funding infusions are causing much rethinking.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Sometimes a free society needs protecting. Too often the people needed to defend it aren't prepared to go willingly but can be coerced. It is absolutely right when the survival of the state and the freedom which are so valued is in peril. It would clearly survive a Charter challenge by way of Ch 1 firstly as a valid limitation in a free and democratic society and secondly by a "notwithstanding" provision if required.

If you can’t find volunteers to defend said society it might deserve to be destroyed. If there isn’t a big enough carrot to offer you aren’t offering the right thing.

Conscription for conscriptions sake I am not sure would survive. Just like how the death penalty likely couldn’t survive a court challenge thanks to the right to life liberty and security of the person. Conscription violates all of those, along with the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, mobility rights, freedom of association, etc.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you can’t find volunteers to defend said society it might deserve to be destroyed. If there isn’t a big enough carrot to offer you aren’t offering the right thing.

For a man to love his society, his society ought to be lovely. If we had a constitution more like the US and actually lived by it, I'd feel Canada was more worth defending than I do now. It's becoming just another self-indulgent welfare state, which are dime-a-dozen, in which strident minorities influence which pastimes are permitted/mandatory and which are forbidden, and too many people are clamouring to essentially live off rents collected from others. There is nothing lovely about an anthill.