Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust

I affirm the resolution Resolved: Military conscription is unjust. Definitions: Military Conscription- a system whereby the state requires all men (and in a few cases women) to serve a period in the armed forces, usually enacted in the form of a draft(Peace Pledge Union) I would argue that this is an objective definition that establishes equal ground for both sides of the debate. Justice- the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due (Roman Emperor Justinian) This definition is desirable because it emphasizes that justice is a matter of each individual person being treated in the right way and that it is not a matter of whether society in general is prosperous or poor. Second, the constant and perpetual will part of the definition reminds us that a central aspect of justice is that people must be treated in a non arbitrary way, there must be consistency in how one person is treated over time. Justinian also emphasized that justice should treat people equally unless there are relevant differences between them such as: special skills, qualifications, etc. The inherent Value in this round is Justice as it is stated in the resolution. My Value Criterion for the round is maximizing individual welfare. Since the definition of Justice emphasizes that the individual is most important we can assume that to determine if an action is just, all policies must be evaluated in terms of how it affects and treats the individual. Contention 1- A Military Conscription would harm individuals because it harms retention rates which would cause the need for more soldiers and possibly increase casualties. Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute writes, A draft brings in untrained first termers, not experienced pilots. And conscripts, who don't want to be in uniform, reenlist in far lower numbers than do volunteers. Only 10 percent of first termers stayed in the military when service was mandatory compared with about 50 percent today under the AVF(all volunteer force). The impact is that with 40 percent retention rate of lower infantry-men in the armed forces under conscription, more men would be forced to serve against their interest directly violating my value criterion by putting more lives in danger. Furthermore, military conscription weakens the ability of the military to effectively handle threats to a nation's security. Francis Rush, acting U.S. assistant secretary of defense for force management policy, reports: A force composed of volunteers is more stable and career-oriented, thereby leading to improved experience and performance, with lower training and turnover costs than we would find with a draft. A return to conscription would yield a less-experienced, less-stable, and less-efficient military. Inducement, not coercion, is the answer to sagging retention. Studies consistently indicate that the most effective remedy is improved compensation. The impact is that Military Conscription effectually weakens a military's ability to operate effectively in combat and high stress situations. This directly harms an individuals welfare by putting them at higher risk in combat situations as well as harming there living conditions during peace time. This prevents the negative from linking back to my value criterion since conscription provides additional risk to individual welfare. Contention 2- Universal Military Conscription would be extremely expensive reducing the ability of the Federal government to provide incentives and benefits to members of the military effectively harming individual welfare and weakening justice. Robert E. Litan, vice president and director of the Brookings Economic Studies Program, writes Balancing these factors, for illustrative purposes a per person cost of $20,000, which, if funded entirely by the federal government, would bring the total annual gross cost of the entire program to about $80 billion. From this figure, it would be necessary to subtract the costs of those who already serve in AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, as well as high school students who now volunteer for the military. Taking all these offsets into account could bring the annual net incremental cost of the program down to, say, the $70 billion range—still a very large number. Still effectively removes 70 billion dollars of Federal Budget money that could be better spent improving the lives of military personnel and army officers especially wounded soldiers. Brad Knickenbocker, staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor, reports that 20,174 have been wounded in Iraq and Afganistan while 2,955 American service men and women have been killed (2,622 in Iraq and 333 in Afghanistan). The 70 billion dollars spent on Military conscription could in part be used to pay medical expenses and disability to the 20,000 wounded soldiers as well as pay for funeral arrangements to the casualties families. The welfare of the wounded soldiers is visibly negatively affected by the cost of military conscription, effectively proving that military conscription is unjust. Therefore we see obvious violations of Justice from military conscription on multiple counts: 1. it creates an inequality of individual welfare by harming the ability of federal government to provide adequate medical treatment to its wounded soldiers 2. it removes incentives and tangable benefits from an all volunteer army that could otherwise be provided by the affirmative side, which prevents more justice from being provided 3. it harms a military's ability to adequately protect its soldiers in armed conflict by reducing the quality and training of its soldiers 4. it creates a perpetual cycle of continued conscription by creating the need to draft more soldiers from low retention rates. This effectively puts more soldiers at risk in armed conflict by continually putting undertrained forces on the front lines harming massive amounts of individual welfare. Therefore I urge a firm affirmation on the resolution Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust