should Pakistan make military service mandatory for all citizens?

[Maarkhoor]

Pakistan is facing hostilities along the border with India, Afghanistan and uncertainty along the Iranian frontier. Should Pakistan adopt a policy to make military service mandatory for all abled citizens? India has the NCC in place attracting young academic students to participate in millitery warefare and discipline. Pakistan abolished its NCC under former Gen Musharaf. Another such example of hiring and training men during war time was by the Serb forces during the breakup of Yogoslavia. Tough street fighters from the Red Star Belgrade football club were recruited and trained in military warefare. From a disorganised football hooligan army to a ruthless, well organised militia. Should Pakistan start initiating military training for citizens which would be tightly controlled and guarded by the army with no interference of religion, ethnic/ tribal, language & political loyalties? A video of Arkans Tigers training

Not needed, NCC already there further we have large population and have enough willing candidate for armed forces hence mandatory military service not required just make NCC more effective and serious...thats all.

 

[Tps43]

Noonay , Peepay and GCSE kids should be sent to waziriatsan for a month , then we will see how much they can rubbish the army after doing it themselves.

Excellent Suggestion .

 

[Samurai_assassin]

Not needed, NCC already there further we have large population and have enough willing candidate for armed forces hence mandatory military service not required just make NCC more effective and serious...thats all.

Didn't former Gen Musharaf abolish the NCC?

 

[Maarkhoor]

Didn't former Gen Musharaf abolish the NCC?

I think yes.

 

[Samurai_assassin]

I think yes.

So it should be reinstated?

 

[Maarkhoor]

So it should be reinstated?

Yes but with a different method and serious training.

 

[Unite & Defend]

In a country where the slightest of differences in opinion usually leads to violence, radicalism is on the rise and street crime is rampant you want to hand over guns to people ? The US has its citizens running around with guns like they're a packet of chips and guess how many mass shootings and terrorists they've stopped ? None. They too have background checks and yet most of their mass shooters and local gangsters obtain weapons legally.

In a country where the slightest of differences in opinion usually leads to violence, radicalism is on the rise and street crime is rampant you want to hand over guns to people ? The US has its citizens running around with guns like they're a packet of chips and guess how many mass shootings and terrorists they've stopped ? None. They too have background checks and yet most of their mass shooters and local gangsters obtain weapons legally.

I get your point I really do, and a society that has no need for firearms is advantaged. But keep in mind that even if gun laws were introduced to periodically eliminate guns in socially, criminals will still get their hands on them. And those guns will be used against the law-abiding citizen's whose guns were taken away. It's completely counter-productive, and so there are extreme ramifications on the horizon if such laws are introduced.
Violence, radicalisation and criminality can be controlled through; Job creation, better policing, CCTV, quicker court proceedings and so on. The point is there are many avenues that can be introduced and/or improved, other than taking peoples firearms away.
Here in England, guns are banned within the wider communities, with some exceptions. And it works here, with a strong dominator being law and order. Coupled with the fact that Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are not itching to destroy England, unlike Pakistans case.
Guns are vital for the citizens of Pakistan. They are used to protect one's family and property, and they will be vital when hostile countries attempt to turn Pakistan into dust.
The downsides of removing firearms in Pakistan do not overweight the upsides of allowing appropriate citizens to keep them.

 

[313ghazi]

1. Provide conditions where your citizens are not hungry, not ill and safe.

2. Educate all our citizens so they can read, write and think independently.

2. Educate every citizen on the difference between halal and haram, so they can apply this in thier day to day.

These steps are the real danger that we face every day. The duty of the state is to address these first.

Once that is in place then I propose national service for everyone at 18. It should be either military training or community based volunteer work for 1 year.

 

[Unite & Defend]

1. Provide conditions where your citizens are not hungry, not ill and safe.

2. Educate all our citizens so they can read, write and think independently.

2. Educate every citizen on the difference between halal and haram, so they can apply this in thier day to day.

These steps are the real danger that we face every day. The duty of the state is to address these first.

Once that is in place then I propose national service for everyone at 18. It should be either military training or community based volunteer work for 1 year.

Community-based work would be fantastic, but skip the volunteer part, designed for the 18-21 age range. or even a mix of military and community work.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

I get your point I really do, and a society that has no need for firearms is advantaged. But keep in mind that even if gun laws were introduced to periodically eliminate guns in socially, criminals will still get their hands on them. And those guns will be used against the law-abiding citizen's whose guns were taken away. It's completely counter-productive, and so there are extreme ramifications on the horizon if such laws are introduced.
Violence, radicalisation and criminality can be controlled through; Job creation, better policing, CCTV, quicker court proceedings and so on. The point is there are many avenues that can be introduced and/or improved, other than taking peoples firearms away.
Here in England, guns are banned within the wider communities, with some exceptions. And it works here, with a strong dominator being law and order. Coupled with the fact that Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are not itching to destroy England, unlike Pakistans case.
Guns are vital for the citizens of Pakistan. They are used to protect one's family and property, and they will be vital when hostile countries attempt to turn Pakistan into dust.
The downsides of owning firearms in Pakistan do not overweight the upsides.

I'm honestly seeing 0 upsides to your argument. Crime and terrorism isn't a local phenomenon here (maybe in Karachi I guess) . There are no school shooters and there's very less gang associated crime. Its militants and terrorists that are the main threat. There has and there will never be a scenario where a civilian is going to come to a standoff against a terrorist and win. Even if there will be one such incident theres going to be hundreds to counter it where easy to obtain guns will be used for more domesticated crimes. I understand that people will kill each other with butterknives if they have to but flooding the streets with machines specially made to make killing easier will only increase killings.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

military training should be mandatory and army should assign unit to each trainee.
in case of any conflict they should be called.

educating your citizens and making them experts in any field can defend Pakistan more than a country of soldiers.
for me people working day and night for the country are our hero's too, irrespective of their occupation.

 

[Hamza913]

Yes, but men only.

 

[Samurai_assassin]

Yes, but men only.

A volunteer force not only for the purpose of national defence but also working as a highly skilled and organised disaster relief survice. Pakistan is prone to natural disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones and floodings. Cannot throw everything on the regular army.

 

[jinn_baba]

Yes.