Imagine you are successfully pursuing your dream career and then suddenly you are forced to leave behind everything you have accomplished and instead spend time performing mandatory national service. That is exactly the situation for BTS, the internationally successful South Korean KPOP boy band, who recently had to stop making records and touring in order to fulfill their mandatory military service, unable to reconvene as a group until 2025. According to an article in Britannica, compulsory national military service has existed at least from the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom (27th century BC). In recent years, however, fewer and fewer countries have required universal conscription. Currently, only 49 countries in the world still have mandatory military service at a specific age and for a specific amount of time. From my perspective, countries should not require compulsory national service because it negatively impacts a nation’s economy, it can be hugely disruptive to someone’s professional career, and a nation does not benefit from service by unenthusiastic conscripted teenagers or young adults.

Firstly, mandatory military service should not be implemented because it can negatively impact a nation’s economy. It is essential to note that when citizens are required to serve in the military, they must leave their jobs and contribute to the armed forces. This creates a gap in the labor force, which can affect businesses and industries that rely on a steady workforce. Simulations for a computational general equilibrium economy by Morten Lau, Professor of Experimental Economics at Copenhagen Business School and Professor of Behavioral Finance at Durham University, demonstrates that such long-run costs of the military draft are sizeable: If the whole population were s subject to conscription, with everybody required to spend one year for military service at the age of 18, long-run gross domestic product (GDP) would be depressed by up to 1 percent compared to an identical economy that has the same level of military output produced in an equally efficient all-volunteer army. Additionally, providing compensation for conscripts, such as salaries and benefits, can become a financial burden on a government. Even on top of these direct economic costs, according to a paper from Taylor & Francis Online published on October 19, 2007, further economic costs, including the loss of labor force, could be at least double the budgetary costs. This financial burden can be particularly challenging for nations with smaller economies or those facing economic difficulties. Therefore, mandatory military service should not be introduced because it has significant negative impacts on a nation’s economy.

Secondly, national service should not be enforced since it can be detrimental to an individual’s education or professional career. Many people spend years cultivating their skills and knowledge in various professions and industries. Forcing them to leave their jobs or education and take up arms can be a huge setback for their learning or professional development. The skills they learn in the military may not always be transferable to their previous or future professions, which means that they may have to start over when they return to civilian life. Moreover, the disruption caused by mandatory military service can negatively impact one’s financial stability, as it is often challenging to earn a comparable salary when one returns to a previous job. According to a 1995 paper by economists Guido Imbens of Harvard University and Wilbert Van Der Klaauw of New York University, substantial losses of up to 5 percent of lifetime earnings are observed from conscripts compared to non-conscripts for Dutch draftees in the 1980s and early 1990s. Effects are even larger during times of war: In the early 1980s, the earnings of white Vietnam War veterans were 15 percent lower than the earnings of comparable non-veterans, according to a research paper by Joshua D. Angrist, an Israeli-American economist. All these examples demonstrate, that national service can significantly disrupt a conscript’s education or professional career, and therefore it should not be enforced.

Finally, conscription may not benefit the nation because conscripted teenagers may not be enthusiastic about serving in the military. This could result in a less effective army compared to all-volunteer armies. It is essential to note that military service is not suitable for everyone. Some people are not physically or mentally capable of serving, while others may not be interested. Forcing these individuals into the military can lead to demotivation and a lack of productivity, which ultimately harms the country. Furthermore, mandatory military service can send the wrong message to teenagers, suggesting that militarism is necessary for a nation’s survival. This type of message can be dangerous and misguided, particularly if it leads to a militaristic culture. Therefore, because a nation would not benefit from unenthusiastic conscripted teenagers, mandatory national service should not be implemented.

Proponents of compulsory national service argue that it can be beneficial to teenagers, as it can instill discipline, patriotism, and a sense of duty to one’s country. However, this argument ignores the fact that teenagers may not be emotionally or mentally prepared for the challenges of military life, and conscription can significantly impact one’s mental health, especially if these conscripts are just teenagers. According to a research paper by the National Library of Medicine, approximately 14 to 16 percent of U.S. service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression. Although only these mental health concerns are highlighted, other issues like suicide, traumatic brain injury, substance abuse, and interpersonal violence can be equally harmful to this population. The effects of these issues can be wide-reaching and substantially impact service members and their families. Instead, governments should invest in programs that provide opportunities for youth engagement in civic and community service, allowing individuals to develop leadership, teamwork, and social responsibility skills without the risks associated with military service. Hence, countries should not introduce compulsory national service.

In conclusion, because of the financial burden it can place on the government, the negative impact it can have on an individual’s professional career, and the demotivating effect it can have on unenthusiastic conscripts, compulsory national service should not be introduced in countries. Rather than relying on conscription, nations should instead focus on building robust volunteer militaries that can attract individuals who are passionate about serving their country. This approach is not only more practical and effective, but it also respects the right to choose how one contributes to society. Ultimately, we should work together to achieve a more peaceful world where armies are not needed, and where the diverse skills and passions of individuals can be harnessed for the betterment of all.