Eh, tell that to the broke kid from Centre(sic), Alabama who has the choice between working at the 711 and probably getting a nice meth addiction (or watching most of his high school deal with their own), slinging meth himself eventually ending up doing 5-10 in the state pen, or the Army. The Army recruiters promise college, which he damn well can't afford in three lifetimes, training, a sense of honor, and a trip out of a red neck suck hole that took his dad, brother and most of his buddies so deep they can't see sun.

It's "volunteer" in the sense that you technically make the choice. But for a lot of kids signing up those choices are sleeping on the couch in the trailer park, a prison cell or an Army cot.

While the choice for volunteers is bad, the state has a much better option - divert some of that money spent on the military and spend it on improving many aspects of society that need it.

I recall a situation from around the early 1990s when there was a proposal to spend about $2 billion on public education. The reaction from lawmakers was like this: Where the heck are we going to get all that money from?

That was just $2 billion! Funding Operation Desert Storm was no big deal.

>These days its hard to say anyone signs up for the military in the major democracies without realising what they where signing up for.

The British armed forces recruit children from the age of 16. I don't agree that 15/16 year olds in their final year of compulsory education know what they are signing up for when the army recruiters come to their school.

There are campaigns to change this, but as far as I know they haven't achieved much support.

For example: http://battlefieldcasualties.co.uk (the powerful video on this site is also relevant to the wider points being discussed upthread about the treatment of ex-military people and how it compares to the fetishisation of the military in other contexts)

The US does this too. I think schools are legally obligated to provide contact information for students.