Mandatory military service

[Duvelthehobbit666]

A) Actually, Vietnam could happen again even with a draft. People seem to forget the lessons of history. It might not be in my lifetime but I see that the chances of it happening quite high.

B) People actually do care or they would not be protesting the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Say rather that the government doesn't care and you must not forget that the opinion of the government is not always the opinion of the people. Don't forget that the soldiers of a volunteer army chose to volunteer.

Every time you repeat that, you reinforce my point. Keep up the good work! :lol:

How? I have yet to see evidence that countries with mandatory military services have less wars.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, whether or not you have a mandatory military service people would still need to be vigilant of their government, so this is a non-issue in this context.

I have nothing against mandatory military service per se. A military is a necessary and legitimate function of a government, and requiring citizens to take part in it is a traditional and legitimate function of government. Even in the US, it's one of the few explicit powers given to the national government.

In many countries where warfare seems unlikely, such as Germany, this mandatory service can also be spent doing public service. I'm a bit leery of what is a (very nice, admittedly) form of slavery to the government, but such programs seem to serve their purpose well enough without creating an undue burden on citizens.

If there was an alternative such as in Germany where you can do public service instead of military service, I would not complain. However, the discussion is only about military service and not an alternative.

Well, from the description the arrangement in Mexico is not terribly different then that of the US. Every male in the US has to register with Selective Service when they're 18, which theoretically means they can be called to military service. However, in practical terms, this will probably never happen.

 

[nasher168]

Compulsory military service is, in my opinion, plain wrong. A person should not be forced to fight and possibly die against their will. I for one would be reluctant to fight for my country even if invasion were imminent unless I thought my life and the lives of those around me would be made worse or shorter by the presence of the invader.
I lack the patriotism that might be necessary to choose to fight for the sake of my country. In fact, I actively despise "my country, right or wrong" nationalism. I do not feel proud in any way to be British. Why should I be? I did not choose to be British. I appreciate the culture and history. I appreciate that many people worked hard and even died themselves to build this place. Hence I have no issue with paying taxes to ensure that continues. Nevertheless, I would be glad to see the UK cease to be a nation in my lifetime. Let it become part of a greater, European nation. Let the EU itself become just another division of a united humanity.
Evidently, I lack many of the characteristics of a soldier. I feel no fanatic loyalty to my country. I dislike heated confrontations. I am a complete coward (it seems senseless to soften the term) with regards to violence. There are doubtlessly many like me, and far more who have different reasons to avoid fighting. It would be totalitarian and callous to send such people to fight against their will.

I don't see ImprobableJoe's argument at all. Look at this map:

Blue= No conscription
Red= Conscription

I think you'll agree that the map certainly doesn't back the idea that conscription lowers the amount of wars fought by a country. Quite the opposite in some cases, in fact (Russia, Israel, Sudan, Ethiopia etc).

EDIT: As pointed out below, the last sentence is not backed by the map.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You are forgetting that cause and effect is not a simple relation. Conscritpion comes from necessity. Countries more propense to conflict will have conscription, the actual war causes conscription, not necessarily the other way arround. What happens if the country desn't have to go to war and doesn't have to have conscription but causes war anyways? It's a shady subject.

I have already expressed what I feel about the subject. And what worries me now is not the question on topic itself but rather an extreme polarized vision that everyone is having. It is complete bullshit to go by the wise words that you rather suck anyones cock as long as they don't curb stomp you to hard (like a pussie), or even to go by oposite extreme where military is the only carreer and that 12 months picking up litter in the woods constitutes a valuable combat skill. There is allot of room in the grey area. I have a feeling this ain't going no where productive, so you will excuse me if I want to take no part in this.

 

[nasher168]

You are forgetting that cause and effect is not a simple relation. Conscritpion comes from necessity. Countries more propense to conflict will have conscription, the actual war causes conscription, not necessarily the other way arround. What happens if the country desn't have to go to war and doesn't have to have conscription but causes war anyways? It's a shady subject.

True. In which case, that rather shows my "Quite the opposite in some cases" sentence as not being backed up.

The preceding sentence still holds, though.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I see the Military as sort of an insurance and less of a slavery - more of something along the lines of patriotic duty, such as Jury Duty, taxes, driving safety exams, and other such things. We pay taxes to get things built, and to have money so that everyone can benefit on a larger scale than the money they put forth in various projects, such as roads, mail, and other things. We do Jury Duty so that each person is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial. We take driving exams so that we can fully guarantee that you know what you're doing before stepping behind an object measured in tons with the possibility of traveling 210 km/h or more (excuse my guesstimated metric conversion).

I am, once again, summing up the entire discussion to: "WAHH!!! MY COUNTRY IS DEMANDING SOMETHING FROM ME!!! I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA!!!"

The Military, in either a reserves or career fashion, should be considered along those same lines as responsibilities as citizens. Contribution from everyone to benefit the whole. If everyone was related to their military in some way, then this would force the leaders to consider the best way of using it. And, I guarantee you that a country with a well established Military and a universal Reserves system would cause the invading country to double-think the losses an invasion and a war could cause, versus a Country with a Voluntary Military - if nothing else, simply sheer numbers and the fact that each citizen has been trained to some degree in the art of war.
If you want to stay in as a career, go right ahead and reap the benefits and further your career.
If you want to do something else with your life, go right ahead. Now that you're at least FAMILIAR with what you'd be doing in case of a war, we can call you back later with just a refresher course. Feel free to live your life - but the second your country needs you, be ready.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I see the Military as sort of an insurance and less of a slavery - more of something along the lines of patriotic duty, such as Jury Duty, taxes, driving safety exams, and other such things. We pay taxes to get things built, and to have money so that everyone can benefit on a larger scale than the money they put forth in various projects, such as roads, mail, and other things. We do Jury Duty so that each person is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial. We take driving exams so that we can fully guarantee that you know what you're doing before stepping behind an object measured in tons with the possibility of traveling 210 km/h or more (excuse my guesstimated metric conversion).

I am, once again, summing up the entire discussion to: "WAHH!!! MY COUNTRY IS DEMANDING SOMETHING FROM ME!!! I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA!!!"

The Military, in either a reserves or career fashion, should be considered along those same lines as responsibilities as citizens. Contribution from everyone to benefit the whole. If everyone was related to their military in some way, then this would force the leaders to consider the best way of using it. And, I guarantee you that a country with a well established Military and a universal Reserves system would cause the invading country to double-think the losses an invasion and a war could cause, versus a Country with a Voluntary Military - if nothing else, simply sheer numbers and the fact that each citizen has been trained to some degree in the art of war.
If you want to stay in as a career, go right ahead and reap the benefits and further your career.
If you want to do something else with your life, go right ahead. Now that you're at least FAMILIAR with what you'd be doing in case of a war, we can call you back later with just a refresher course. Feel free to live your life - but the second your country needs you, be ready.

When talking about military actions, we are talking about taking away lives. No one should be forced to kill in the name of their country. If my government came to my door and said, "shoot those people, we are at war," I'd tell them to fuck off. This should not be a question of efficiency or politics but ethics. First answer the question, "Is it ethical to force someone to kill other people for the country they live in?"

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I see the Military as sort of an insurance and less of a slavery - more of something along the lines of patriotic duty, such as Jury Duty, taxes, driving safety exams, and other such things. We pay taxes to get things built, and to have money so that everyone can benefit on a larger scale than the money they put forth in various projects, such as roads, mail, and other things. We do Jury Duty so that each person is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial. We take driving exams so that we can fully guarantee that you know what you're doing before stepping behind an object measured in tons with the possibility of traveling 210 km/h or more (excuse my guesstimated metric conversion).

I am, once again, summing up the entire discussion to: "WAHH!!! MY COUNTRY IS DEMANDING SOMETHING FROM ME!!! I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA!!!"

The Military, in either a reserves or career fashion, should be considered along those same lines as responsibilities as citizens. Contribution from everyone to benefit the whole. If everyone was related to their military in some way, then this would force the leaders to consider the best way of using it. And, I guarantee you that a country with a well established Military and a universal Reserves system would cause the invading country to double-think the losses an invasion and a war could cause, versus a Country with a Voluntary Military - if nothing else, simply sheer numbers and the fact that each citizen has been trained to some degree in the art of war.
If you want to stay in as a career, go right ahead and reap the benefits and further your career.
If you want to do something else with your life, go right ahead. Now that you're at least FAMILIAR with what you'd be doing in case of a war, we can call you back later with just a refresher course. Feel free to live your life - but the second your country needs you, be ready.

When talking about military actions, we are talking about taking away lives. No one should be forced to kill in the name of their country. If my government came to my door and said, "shoot those people, we are at war," I'd tell them to fuck off. This should not be a question of efficiency or politics but ethics. First answer the question, "Is it ethical to force someone to kill other people for the country they live in?"

This is one of those logical conundrums. Sometimes the best way to avoid death is to be prepared to kill. Consider Israel; the Six-day War would have ended up with a lot more casualties if Israel had been less militarily prepared. Imagine Nanking a hundred times over if the Chinese hadn't at least attempted to halt the Japanese invasion.

Now, granted, this isn't always the way it works out. However, it is pragmatically ethical to kill to defend yourself; and that is the intended role of a military.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

When talking about military actions, we are talking about taking away lives. No one should be forced to kill in the name of their country. If my government came to my door and said, "shoot those people, we are at war," I'd tell them to fuck off. This should not be a question of efficiency or politics but ethics. First answer the question, "Is it ethical to force someone to kill other people for the country they live in?"

The Military, in either a reserves or career fashion, should be considered along those same lines as responsibilities as citizens. Contribution from everyone to benefit the whole. If everyone was related to their military in some way, then this would force the leaders to consider the best way of using it.

>>>import Logic
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 34, in <module>
ImportError: No module named Logic
>>>print Response
You're assuming that genocide is the only reason a military exists. This is not only blunt bias, but de facto evidence that you have no clue what uses a Military is.
A Military can provide massive amounts of domestic support in times of national crisis, such as dispatching THOUSANDS of HMs, Medics, and Doctors to disaster areas worldwide where other organizations can't even dream of providing support. The Navy does a fairly good job at keeping Piracy at bay - the presence of a single Navy ship with mounted .50 cal and missile-support would send any dingy of a boat with AK-47 munitions to spin a complete 180 and run for the hills. The Navy also patrols international waters, nabbing drug-runners, slave ships, and other such things.
Also, you're forgetting the fact that sometimes war is a necessary evil in order to halt a greater Evil. For example, WWII with the Japanese expanding into other countries with an imperialistic fashion, and the thousands dead due to a deliberate and intentional attack by the Air and Naval Forces of the Empire of Japan. :|
Also, a rapid expanse of the 3rd Reich into the takeover of Europe, and subsequent take over the popular half of Russia, the Balkans, Northern Africa, and so on and so forth, along with the Blitz in Europe.
I see a mandatory Military as just that - insurance against atrocity and takeover.

P.S. I hope you got the "Python" joke. I was writing code to make a witty single-action RPG at the time, and I am feeling humorously sarcastic.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

When talking about military actions, we are talking about taking away lives. No one should be forced to kill in the name of their country. If my government came to my door and said, "shoot those people, we are at war," I'd tell them to fuck off. This should not be a question of efficiency or politics but ethics. First answer the question, "Is it ethical to force someone to kill other people for the country they live in?"

The Military, in either a reserves or career fashion, should be considered along those same lines as responsibilities as citizens. Contribution from everyone to benefit the whole. If everyone was related to their military in some way, then this would force the leaders to consider the best way of using it.

>>>import Logic
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 34, in <module>
ImportError: No module named Logic
>>>print Response
You're assuming that genocide is the only reason a military exists. This is not only blunt bias, but de facto evidence that you have no clue what uses a Military is.
A Military can provide massive amounts of domestic support in times of national crisis, such as dispatching THOUSANDS of HMs, Medics, and Doctors to disaster areas worldwide where other organizations can't even dream of providing support. The Navy does a fairly good job at keeping Piracy at bay - the presence of a single Navy ship with mounted .50 cal and missile-support would send any dingy of a boat with AK-47 munitions to spin a complete 180 and run for the hills. The Navy also patrols international waters, nabbing drug-runners, slave ships, and other such things.
Also, you're forgetting the fact that sometimes war is a necessary evil in order to halt a greater Evil. For example, WWII with the Japanese expanding into other countries with an imperialistic fashion, and the thousands dead due to a deliberate and intentional attack by the Air and Naval Forces of the Empire of Japan. :|
Also, a rapid expanse of the 3rd Reich into the takeover of Europe, and subsequent take over the popular half of Russia, the Balkans, Northern Africa, and so on and so forth, along with the Blitz in Europe.
I see a mandatory Military as just that - insurance against atrocity and takeover.

P.S. I hope you got the "Python" joke. I was writing code to make a witty single-action RPG at the time, and I am feeling humorously sarcastic.

Yes, the military can provide everything you state above, yet, most of this can be done with a professional army. An army which gets paid to do this and made a choice to follow a career in the military. And I have stated earlier that in extreme cases, it is good but when there is no need for it, it should not be in place. Currently, the danger of an eminent invasion is extremely low. So there is no need now.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Yes, the military can provide everything you state above, yet, most of this can be done with a professional army. An army which gets paid to do this and made a choice to follow a career in the military. And I have stated earlier that in extreme cases, it is good but when there is no need for it, it should not be in place. Currently, the danger of an eminent invasion is extremely low. So there is no need now.

One must always be prepared for the worst.
If you didn't agree to this - then ask yourself why you have Car Insurance. House Insurance. Life Insurance. Any insurance whatsoever.
Ask yourself why you have a savings account to fall back on (if you were smart you would, anyhow). Ask yourself why you make "Plan B" and "Plan C" if you're doing something of vital importance.
Ask why Murphey's Law is constantly quoted.

Plus, you ignored my postulates about the mentalities of invading a country that has a mandatory service with Lifetime reserves versus voluntary. you have only addressed part of my post.

 

[nasher168]

Just going back a few posts...

I see the Military as sort of an insurance and less of a slavery - more of something along the lines of patriotic duty, such as Jury Duty, taxes, driving safety exams, and other such things.

The insurance guaranteed by the military can be and is fulfilled by volunteer soldiers.
As for patriotic duty... fuck that. I do not pay taxes, do Jury Duty or learn to drive safely out of patriotism.
I pay tax because I see it as a way of paying for public services including protection by the military.
I learn to drive properly because it's a law I respect and see the sense behind.
I would do Jury Duty because I have to and again I see the necessity behind it.
In all three cases, there is no other workable alternative. With military service, the ranks of the army can more easily be filled with volunteers. Therefore it is unnecessary to forcibly recruit unwilling members of the public.


To give an idea of just how little patriotic duty I feel, let's imagine a scenario:
Let's imagine for a moment that the US had for some reason decided to conquer the UK. The government comes and tries to round up people to repel the invader. If I go to fight the US, there is a good chance I will die. The US military dwarfs our own.
But life isn't that bad in the US. Sure, it has faults but for the most part it's fairly similar to life here. If my government is overthrown I can still enjoy life as I did before. I won't be particularly pleased at the prospect of the UK being occupied, but I certainly don't see why I should fight or die over it.
If it was Nazi Germany about to invade, it might be a different matter. But in that situation I am not fighting for the thin, artificial entity of my country. I am fighting for a better life for those around me than they would have if we were under a fascist regime.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Plus, you ignored my postulates about the mentalities of invading a country that has a mandatory service with Lifetime reserves versus voluntary. you have only addressed part of my post.

Mandatory service or not, countries will invade. I do not see any country being more careful or better prepared for invasion. USA had a draft during Vietnam. It did not stop Vietnam from fighting the USA because of large amounts of troops and it did not stop the US from sending kid after kid to be shot in the jungle or coming home unable to adjust to regular life again. I have yet to hear of an invasion stopped because of mandatory service.

 

[RichardMNixon]

"WAHH!!! MY COUNTRY IS DEMANDING SOMETHING FROM ME!!! I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA I DUN WANNA!!!"

What makes the military so special here? We need police, firemen, nurses, teachers, bus drivers, garbagemen etc. Should we conscript for those jobs?

Also, wtf?

You should be allowed an escape for religious reasons, or being weak-willed in terms of death.

You need to fight for your country! Unless you're a quaker! WTF?

 

[creamcheese]

Personally I think the system in use currently in my country (US) seems to work fairly well for our situation. We all (males) have to sign up for selective service just in case, but don't actually get called. Vietnam was the last time the draft was used, and I doubt anyone would stand for it unless we were being invaded. There are exceptions to the draft if it is ever instituted for conscience, religion, or medical conditions (and I think for occupations that are vital to war making).

This of course is ideal for our situation, we can afford a professional military and have plenty of volunteers to fill it. We also have no real threats of invasion from anywhere. Other nations may have differing circumstances and thus a different system may be more ideal. Germany for example, as I think has been mentioned here, has mandatory service for some. This is largely a relic of the cold war, where invasion by the USSR was considered a threat and a large military was seen as a requirement for national survival. I understand there is some debate about whether it is needed any longer, now that the USSR is no more, and NATO is considerably larger.

Other nations might have even safer circumstances like Iceland for example. They have no military and have not had one for quite a while if I remember correctly. They haven't much to fear in terms of invasion, and haven't enough in the way of natural resources (except maybe geothermal power), to justify it in any case. Their system (none) works for them.

Getting to the OP's situation, I have to admit I did not know our neighbors to the south had conscription of this sort, and what he describes sounds pretty useless. I would vote to abolish it if I was a Mexican citizen, or at least only draft as many men as you can afford to actually train. As far as I can tell, Mexico hasn't many (if any) threats of invasion and not much for its military to do except train and fight the drug cartels (which they shouldn't have to deal with in the first place, but the US seems to have an insatiable lust for narcotics). A quick perusal of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_army doesn't have anything on Mexican conscription, but it seems mostly focused on equipment and history. I would be interested to hear the OP discuss it more detail.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

One of the major tasks of the Mexican military is border control. That is, control of Mexico's southerly borders. Taking a look at their border policy, you can't help but laugh when their government complains about American policy.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Mandatory service or not, countries will invade. I do not see any country being more careful or better prepared for invasion. USA had a draft during Vietnam. It did not stop Vietnam from fighting the USA because of large amounts of troops and it did not stop the US from sending kid after kid to be shot in the jungle or coming home unable to adjust to regular life again. I have yet to hear of an invasion stopped because of mandatory service.

You just proved my point.
If Vietnam had a full-on and enforced Military, instead of guerrilla civilian resistance, the United States would have thought of something better than getting involved. Also, if the United States had a policy of training instead of a grab-and-go draft for a useless war, we wouldn't have been sending in "Kids" with only a few months of training and having never been in a single combat-like situation in their lives.

Also, your plea to emotion doesn't make your completely backwards statement make you any more right, or make any more sense.

And I never said that an invasion would stop because of mandatory service, but it would act as a somewhat tactical deterrent. For example, why has Israel not been invaded yet - even though they are some of the biggest pricks in the world, and also only hold a small portion of the Middle East?
Because every man and woman past a certain age serves in the Military, and is in the reserves afterward to be called out for later. Every single one of them has fired a gun, and is a trained member of their armed services. [ref]

Please see the successful history of Total Warfare tactics, and why it works so well.

 

[RichardMNixon]

If Vietnam had a full-on and enforced Military, instead of guerrilla civilian resistance, the United States would have thought of something better than getting involved. Also, if the United States had a policy of training instead of a grab-and-go draft for a useless war, we wouldn't have been sending in "Kids" with only a few months of training and having never been in a single combat-like situation in their lives.

Iraq had a professional military and we invaded them anyway. What's more, we seem to be having much more trouble with the guerillas.

Your second point seems to be arguing against a draft :?:

And again, why do you think it so necessary to require military service, but not police service, fireman service, or garbageman service? All are essential and just about everything except military service would be more helpful to the country in our present situation.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Mandatory service or not, countries will invade. I do not see any country being more careful or better prepared for invasion. USA had a draft during Vietnam. It did not stop Vietnam from fighting the USA because of large amounts of troops and it did not stop the US from sending kid after kid to be shot in the jungle or coming home unable to adjust to regular life again. I have yet to hear of an invasion stopped because of mandatory service.

You just proved my point.
If Vietnam had a full-on and enforced Military, instead of guerrilla civilian resistance, the United States would have thought of something better than getting involved. Also, if the United States had a policy of training instead of a grab-and-go draft for a useless war, we wouldn't have been sending in "Kids" with only a few months of training and having never been in a single combat-like situation in their lives.

Also, your plea to emotion doesn't make your completely backwards statement make you any more right, or make any more sense.

And I never said that an invasion would stop because of mandatory service, but it would act as a somewhat tactical deterrent. For example, why has Israel not been invaded yet - even though they are some of the biggest pricks in the world, and also only hold a small portion of the Middle East?
Because every man and woman past a certain age serves in the Military, and is in the reserves afterward to be called out for later. Every single one of them has fired a gun, and is a trained member of their armed services. [ref]

Please see the successful history of Total Warfare tactics, and why it works so well.

• 
  A) You still have not answered my question if it is morally ok to force people to kill other people. There are definitely not enough non combat jobs to fill those who do not want to fight.
  
  B)You clearly have not read my posts. I said in extreme circumstances, mandatory service would be understandable. Israel would fall under that category because it is a country with a relative small population and lots of hostile nations in the area.
  
  C)You seem to forget the mental stability of people here. I commented on the fact that it is unethical to send people because it could ruin their lives because of what they see. No amount of training can prepare people for this and only when it happens can we know if the person is strong enough to handle these situations emotionally. This is why it is important to have volunteered. This way, no emotional damage is done upon people who did not want to be there.
  
  D) Why is a plea of emotion bad in this case. You seem to have no regard to life here and the damage which could be caused by splitting up families or putting individuals under such stress that they cannot happen. Just because many theists use plea of emotion to prove that god(s) exist does not mean it is a bad argument. The freedom of people and the emotional stability is more important than the military especially when the country in question has a very low risk of invasion.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Your second point seems to be arguing against a draft :?:

Also, if the United States had a policy of training instead of a grab-and-go draft for a useless war, we wouldn't have been sending in "Kids" with only a few months of training and having never been in a single combat-like situation in their lives.

It's against an immediate draft of people untrained at least some point in their life, over mandatory service with people as for training - so that they're not going in on a whim without prior training or expectation that they won't ever be not-called upon.

And again, why do you think it so necessary to require military service, but not police service, fireman service, or garbageman service? All are essential and just about everything except military service would be more helpful to the country in our present situation.

Because the defense of a country should be placed upon a pedestal. What do you think of first when building a house?
The heater to keep you warm? The food to feed you? The bed to sleep?
No. The first thing you can do when securing a home is to make sure you have walls to protect you from the elements, and a roof.

A) You still have not answered my question if it is morally ok to force people to kill other people. There are definitely not enough non combat jobs to fill those who do not want to fight.

I see nothing wrong in someone being forced to kill in the name of defense of their country - if it's truly and justly defense. You have likewise ignored my posit that any democracy where everyone is a member of their own armed services and is capable of being recalled at any time would most likely think better of what they get themselves into, over just throwing "those Volunteers" in for something they can be called in for.

B)You clearly have not read my posts. I said in extreme circumstances, mandatory service would be understandable. Israel would fall under that category because it is a country with a relative small population and lots of hostile nations in the area.

I still wonder why it hasn't been invaded and crushed yet, considering it's small population and landmass.

Oh wait - everyone's been in the military and is an enlisted Reservist.

C)You seem to forget the mental stability of people here.

*Looks up NephilimFree and VenomFangX for a refresher*

I commented on the fact that it is unethical to send people because it could ruin their lives because of what they see. No amount of training can prepare people for this and only when it happens can we know if the person is strong enough to handle these situations emotionally. This is why it is important to have volunteered. This way, no emotional damage is done upon people who did not want to be there.

A country under attack must face similar struggles from everyone. Or do you think the invading country is just going to do it with milk, cookies, and dragons that breath fresh-mint patties? That there's not going to be atrocity in the chaos, and that the conquering nation would not have a regime that the conquered citizens will not appreciate?

The problem with your reasoning is that when you think "Military" you think "INVADING AND ATTACKING FOREIGN NATIONS HURR DURR" - whereas I'm seeing an obligatory military as a smelted and forged shield - which is essentially what Mandatory Reserve services are for. It is not only a good idea, but an active deterrent in regards to strategic planning and the ability for every citizen to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their country.

D) Why is a plea of emotion bad in this case. You seem to have no regard to life here and the damage which could be caused by splitting up families or putting individuals under such stress that they cannot happen. Just because many theists use plea of emotion to prove that god(s) exist does not mean it is a bad argument. The freedom of people and the emotional stability is more important than the military especially when the country in question has a very low risk of invasion.

A risk is a risk is a risk.
The fault of pleading to emotion is that it asks you to not look at the facts and think about it, but instead let your emotions dictate a decision that should be carefully thought out and planned with weighted benefits vs. costs.
Of course I care about lives. The Benefits of a Mandatory Reserves would greatly outnumber those of an instant draft, forcing millions of untrained civilians to do something a trained military force can do.

BTW IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD YOU'LL DIE FOREVER AGAIN! /emotional plea