Text
The argument: key words
The counter-argument:key words
  
 
 
 

5 
 
 
 

10 
 
 
 

15 
 
 
 

20 
 
 
 

25 
 
 
 

30 
 
 
 

35 
 
 
 

40

 Believe it or not, the Swiss were once a warlike people.  There is still  
evidence of this.  To this day, the guards at the Vatican are Swiss.  But the  
Swiss discovered long ago that constant warfare brought them nothing but  
suffering and poverty.  They adopted a policy of neutrality, and while the  
rest of the world seethed in turmoil, Switzerland, a country with hardly  
any natural resources, enjoyed peace and prosperity.  The rest of the world  
 is still not ready to accept this simple and obvious solution.  Mostcounties   
 not only maintain permanent armies but require all their young men to do  
a period of compulsory military service.  Everybody has a lot to say about  
the desirability of peace, but no one does anything about it.  An obvious   
thing to do would be to abolish conscription everywhere.  This would be the  
 first step towards universal peace.  
      Some countries, like Britain, have already abandoned peace-time  
conscription.  Unfortunately, they havn't done so for idealistic reasons,  
 but from a simple recognition of the fact that modern warfare is highly  
 professional business.  In the old days, large armies were essential. There  
 was strength in unmbers; ordinary soldiers were cannot fodder.  But in  
 these days of inter-continental ballistic missiles, of push-button warfare  
and escalation, unskilled manpower has become redundant.  In a mere two  
years or so, you can't hope to train conscripts in the requirements and  
conditions of modern warfare.  So why bother?  Leave it to the professionals!  
     There are also pressing personal reasons to abolish conscription.  It is  
most unpleasant in times of peace for young men to grow up with the  
threat of military service looming over their heads.  They are deprived of   
two of the best and most formative years of their livies.  Their careers and   
studies are disrupted and sometimes the whole course of their lives is   
altered.  They spend at least two years in the armed forces engaged in  
activities which do not provide them with any useful experience with regard   
to their future work.  It can not even be argued that what they learn might   
prove valuable in a national emergency.  When they  leave the services,  
young men quickly forget all the unnecessary information about warfare  
which they were mad to acquire.  It is shocking to think that skilled and   
unskilled men are often nothing more than a source of cheap labour for the   
military.    
     Some people argue that military service 'does you good'.  'Two years in  
the army,'  you hear people say, 'will knock some sense into him.' The  
opposite is usually the case.  Anyone would resent being pushed about and   
bullied for two years, all in the name of 'discipline'.   The military mind  requires uniformity and conformity.  People who do not quite fit into this brutal pattern suffer terribly and may even emerge with serious personality  
disorders.  There are many wonderful ways of spending two years.  Serving
in the armed forces is not one of them!
         
 The argument: key words
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 

19 
20 
 

The Swiss: once a wearlike people: Swiss guards, Vatican. 
The Swiss discovered constant warfare: suffering, poverty 
Neutral policy: peace and prosperity 
Rest of world hasn't accwpted this. 
Most counteies: permanent armies, compulsory military service. 
First Steps to peace: abolish conscription. 
Some countries (e.g. Britain): abandoned conscription. 
Not for idealistic reasons:recognition modern warfare is highly pro- 
fessional. 
No stregth in numbers; no need for cannon fodder. 
Push-button warfare:  unskilled manpower redundant. 
Two years not enough to train consxripts.  Leave it to professionals. 
Personal reasons to abolish conscription. 
Young men grow up with treat of two years' service; best, most for- 
mative years. 
Careers, studies disrupted; even course of lives altered. 
Useless experience: not valuable even in notional emergency.  Men 
forget what they learnt. 
Skilled and unskilled men; source of cheap labour. 
'Does you good' argument: not true. 
Young men pushed about, bullied; discipline.  Uniformity and con- 
formity. 
Many suffer terribly; some: personality disorders. 
Many wonderful ways of spending two years; armed forces no one of  
them.
           
The counter-argument: key words
 
1
2
3
4
Aim of peacetime conscription: national defence. 
Insistence on conventional (not nuclear) warfare. 
Therefore possibility of nuclear warfare is reduced. 
Many examples of conventional warfare in recent times.
5
6
7
8
 
9
Two years in armed forces provide valuable experience of men; help  
a young man to grow up. 
Valuable character training: stress on physical fitness, initiative, etc.   
A man can discover his abilities and limitations. 
Helps with careers: many opportunities to study. 
Helps qualified men to gain first experience in their careers  
(e.g. doctors, teachers, etc.). 
Helps unskilled men,' to acquire skills (e.g. driving, vehicle mainten- 
ance, building, etc.). 
10
  
11
12
13
14
Old-fashioned disciplinary measures not essential in modem armed  
services. 
Qrcat spirit of cenradeship: rnorale high. 
Many facilities available to servicemen- for recreation, sports, etc. 
Opportunities to travel overseas (e.g. UN peace-keeping force, etc.).  
Present-day defence arrangements are international: irresponsible for  
individual nations to opt out.