Palantir Wants to Reinstate the Draft

When's the last time Finland or Switzerland attacked or invaded another country? People are willing to engage in compulsory military service if they feel that it's truly meant to help the country defend itself from actual attack, not potentially being shipped off somewhere to serve some political or economic goal.

Yeah, if anyone maybe needs compulsory service, it's Mexico and Canada (to protect against the threat of the US), not the US.

While the majority of Finns speak highly of their conscription system, there's also an understanding that it's propped up by Finland's unique history and place in the world. I think people are seriously naive as to how much shit the Finnish people have suffered over the last millenia, and how that has contextualized their modern existence.

> Finland has been rated the happiest country in the world

"Tilastollinen onnellisuus" is a concept relentlessly mocked by Finns. Finns are very proud of their country, but many are also very quick to call it a shithole, to engage in valittaminen, and for good reason. Their love for it is practically an expression of sisu. The contradiction of it being an absolute dreg of a swamp populated by insufferable FINNS, yet they would all agree to throw their life away to defend it anyways, is not a situation that was conjured out of thin air with some clever social policies and progressive tax reform.

Even though the title of the Reason article is "Palantir Wants to Reinstate the Draft", suggesting that point 6 is what the Reason editorial staff found most striking about their manifesto, the actual text of what Palantir wrote about conscription is:

> 6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.

which is actually more of a hedge than most of their other points. "National service should be a universal duty" is vague enough to be compatible with a few different concrete policies. And "seriously consider" moving away from an all-volunteer force is rather different from a specific recommendation to literally re-instate the draft! I suspect that the people inside Palantir responsible for this copy are close enough to the actual military that they're aware of the good arguments for why an all-volunteer military is more effective at achieving its goals than one with a bunch of draftees who really don't want to be there.

And because Palantir frames this point as a way to make "everyone share[...] in the risk and the cost" of wars, there's actually quite a lot of measured agreement even here in this HN thread full of people who dislike Palantir in general. Making everyone share in the risk and the cost of wars does have emotional resonance that makes people a bit less reflexively opposed to bringing back the draft than they might otherwise be.

Anyway, I'm against mandatory national service. The US military works well as an all-volunteer force, the US government is perfectly capable of hiring people at a wage to do other types of national service work, and I don't think it's actually socially desirable to force every US citizen to do some amount of mandatory, low-quality work to make them feel connected to the rest of society or whatever other vague benefit people think it would have on the citizenry at large. I'm also skeptical that mandatory service would involve enough young people actually entering combat roles against their will, to incentivize meaningful change to how the US uses its military in the world.