Sweden has what’s known as “Totalförsvar” (Absolute Defense) - which is basically preparing society for war or severe crises (i.e. diaster relief). There are two layers to it:
- Military Defense: Which is managed by the Swedish Armed Forces dwelling more on protecting national borders (as in defending their own country), dettering attacks and conducting armed operations in cooperation with allies like NATO.
- Civil Defense: This involves all of society beyond the military. It ensures the survival of the population and continuity of essential services (i.e. healthcare, electricity, water, and telecommunications) even under severe stress or during war.
This is NOT the same type of draft that was once enforced in the US (i.e. Vietnam) where people are randomly selected via a draft lottery or fighting in a war distant from their own country under false pretenses from politicians or being brainwashed by propaganda. The thing is, can civil defense work in America if imposed towards the average joe?
Not discussing Vietnam including both Iraq & Afghanistan, rather what would be the public opinion if the same form of draft from Sweden were to be enacted in the US? (not to fight overseas, rather closer to a border guard but in the position of a soldier defending the country or being given duties equivalent to FEMA or any first responder).
A few things to talk about first in regards to the US:
We have the concept of the National Guard, which is a military reserve force under the control of the States but with the ability for the President to call it to active duty. While still a military force, state governors will mobilize them for things where the local police force needs help, like natural disasters, so it is possible to deploy them on missions that are closer to Civil Defense actions.
We also do have a bunch of agencies that collectively make up something like a Civil Defense Force, but since the Bush administration those agencies have largely been sucked into the Department of Homeland Security, and even the concept of “civil defense” has been eaten by the idea of “Homeland Security” (which is a bit different, don’t you think?) The one exception is emergency preparedness/ FEMA, which is still a priority in most people’s minds despite our President treating everything he touches like his own personal piggy bank.
Now, in relation to your idea about a “draft” for civil defense purposes, we call the idea National Service and we have many such agencies, like Americorps. However, the idea of mandatory national service will never happen until Americans as a whole become less selfish. And even if it does, I am confident those who are well-off will find a way to buy out of it, which will defeat the whole purpose, won’t it?
huh, i never knew about the civil defense force, but that makes a lot of sense. Homeland Security was such a cluster fuck of an idea.
I wanted to do Americorp, but unfortunately, it and things like Teach for America, and structured and salaried such that they aren’t really available to people who need to pay bills or have significant debt, they are mostly good for kids who have wealthier families. It would be nice to see that stuff become more accessible.
The living allowance for it in my state is 2000 dollars pre tax, which isn’t a livable wage , when renting a bedroom in a shared living arrangement is $1000 or more and your after tax income would be probably 1500. It would work if you lived with your parents though.
My link may have been a bit misleading. We have never had an entity named “civil defense force” but pre-9/11 the same function was filled by a hodgepodge of agencies, which that Wikipedia article discussed. After that they were all folded into the “DHS” trench coat.