In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory.

I will be arguing for the position that in the United States, national service ought to be compulsory. I will first propose that this debate be judged by the value of Life. Life is the most important value of all, because it comes before every other value. One cannot have security, liberty, autonomy, or quality of life without first having Life itself. Contentions: 1. Having a strong military is paramount to national security. National security is defined as "The safety of a nation against threats such as terrorism, war, and espionage" by the Oxford English dictionary (2). The safety of a nation is a prerequisite to securing the Life of its citizens. In order for a state to be safe against outside threats, it must have a strong military. Without a strong military, a state can easily be attacked and defeated. When a state is at war with other states, the Life of its citizens can be placed in jeopardy. The same is true if a state is defeated in war, and its citizens face potential death or new governance that could infringe on their freedom. The last time that national service was instated in the U.S. was during the Vietnam War (3). At this time, the U.S. believed that the Vietnam War had to be won to prevent the spread of communism across Asia (3), which would then pose a threat to the Life of U.S. citizens as well as the Life and freedom of the citizens of affected countries. 2. The effects of being forced to serve in the military are similar to having an inadequate armed forces. When a person is forced to serve in the U.S. military, they may have to put their own Life at risk for their country. Therefore, being a part of the army would put a person"s Life in jeopardy However, people who are not in war can lose their Life as well. In the Vietnam War, for example, up to 2 million civilians may have been killed over the course of the war, while only 1.1 million soldiers were. A country"s civilians have their lives put at risk if their military isn"t strong enough to fend off incoming threats. 3. More people are adversely affected by a lack of national security than by national service. When a country has a strong military, civilian casualties in that country are kept to a minimum, and, thus, Life is maximized. For example, in World War Two, only 1,700 U.S. civilians were killed (4), because the U.S. instated a draft that ensured a strong military. If a country is taken over because its military is too weak, then civilian casualties can become much greater. For example, the countries taken over by Nazi Germany had death tolls that ranged from 60,000 to 3,000,000 (5). While this is not the value which I have proposed, I would also like to discuss Security. Security is defined as "The state of being free from danger or threat" by the Oxford English dictionary (6). When a country is taken over, the Security of all of its citizens is put at risk, because they no longer have their country"s military to defend them. Cruel dictatorships, such as the Nazis, can take the Life of many citizens and the Security of many more (5). From all of these arguments, it is apparent that the negative consequences of a weak military are much greater than those of compulsory national service. This is because national service secures the Life of all of a country"s citizens. For these reasons, national service ought to be compulsory in the United States. Sources: (1) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... (2) http://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu...- (3) https://www.britannica.com... (4) http://www.centre-robert-schuman.org... (5) http://www.english.illinois.edu... (6) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...