At the beginning of the year, the government has declared the reduction of the mandatory military service from 24 months to 18 months, based on the requirements of the army and the navy. People who agree to the reduction claim that two years in the army is “waste of time.” On the other hand, some people say that the reduction of the military service term will lead to a weaker national defense. In fact, the matter of compulsory military service is a problem that should be dealt with, in the viewpoint of the defense of the nation as well as the productivity of labor force. *The Yonsei Annals* asked people’s opinions about the shortening of the military service term.

Pros
* Kim Min-ji (Fresh., Col of Law)
   After entering university, I see many men worrying about their military service. Since it takes two years or more, they feel difficulties in planning their campus lives with their military. While women plan to participate as exchange students of complete language courses, they plan when to go into the army and what to do after returning to school. We can’t deny the fact that serving in the army provides dilemmas for men to plan their lives.
   If the service period reduces, men will have more opportunities to invest time s well as plan their futures, which will gradually lead to the economic growth of the nation. If Korea becomes wealthier, it will be able to spend money arming its military. In the long run, reducing the military term could make the nation stronger.

* Kim Sung-kwon (alias, Yonsei Graduate School of Business)
   While serving in the army, I found that the use of the labor force in the army is ineffective. For instance, most of the army’s soldiers do the simple labor such as shoveling, which can be actually be done by an excavator. People’s labor can’t catch up to that of the machines. I think it is better to upgrade the arms and weapons than make people fatigued.
   In addition, a long service term makes men dull. I served in the military for 26 months. After those 26 months, I even forgot the important basic facts that I learned in high school. I don’t think 26 months was worth it, considering that I haven’t done anything productive for the last eight to nine months before leaving the army. It also took a long time to adjust myself back to the society as a *bokhaksang.*

* Choi Yeong-jun (Sr., Dept.,of Political Science)
   I believe that paying money for the high-tech weapons is much more effective than paying for more soldiers. For instance, in the past, six people were needed to run a tank. After possessing modern tanks, however, two people are sufficient for operating it. Less and less people are needed for the army if technology develops. Thus, I think it is okay to reduce the military service term. Ignoring bettered conditions for the military and being obstinate in maintaining the period is a loss of time.

 *Kim Byeong-jo (Prof., of Korea National Defense Univ.)
   South Korea is in contraposition with North Korea, which has more than ten million soldiers, including reserves. This is the reason why we are maintaining a universal conscription system, while most of the other developed countries adopt AVF. However, All Voluntary Forces having chosen a universal conscription system does not mean that every man should equally serve a long time in the army.
   First, the military force we are tending to have is an “optimal army” which can cope with any threat to the nation and which can be also be of good use for the prosperity of the nation. It is not a “maximum army” which can be used to threaten other nations. Second, maintaining an oversized army may weaken international competitiveness in other areas of the nation.
   Some people worry that the reduction of the period of service might weaken the defense of the nation, but if we reform the army more effectively, and pay the soldiers who are able to stay longer in the army; it should cover the lack of the soldiers. The overall intention is to lessen the burden on men as well as maintain the prosperity of the nation.

Cons
*Sun Young-joo (Soph., Col., of science)
   Since technology has improved, the present army has its high-tech and high-cost military facilities and weapons. To run that equipment, however, 18 months of military service is too short a time period to train the soldiers. The soldiers need five weeks of basic military training, and three to five weeks of specialized training. If the period of military service is reduced to 18 months, the actual service term becomes only 15 months, which leads the soldiers to obtain their discharge even before they are accustomed to the military.
   The budget matter is another problem we should consider. The ministry of national defense offered paying soldiers for serving longer in the army. The plan to pay the soldiers who wishes re-enlist more requires hundreds of billions of won a year. However, although we accept the plan, it is a wonder if we would have enough money to spend, and if the soldiers would serve more for that payment.

*Lee Hyuk (The Graduate School of Business)
   Before talking about the reduction of the service term, the personal meaning of serving in the army should be reconsidered. Many people regard military service as a sacrifice of their youth. I think, however, every experience is important and useful. In my case, the army made me strong, not easily surrendering to difficulties.
   I feel that two years is an ideal period of time for training. Although one has learned how to use weapons of how to behave in army, it takes time to get adjusted and used to the army. Thus, 2 year is necessary to both learn about the army and to get used to it. In fact, out of 75 countries which have compulsory army service, the largest number of 22 countries such as China, Taiwan, and Indonesia are taking a 24 months course for their military training. The fact shows that 24 months is the ideal time period mandatory military service.

*Lim Geun-seo (Jr., Dept., of Bus.)
   I understand that Korean men have barriers due to serving in the army. After serving their compulsory military service, the average beginning work age for Korean men is older than that of other developed countries. Even worse, they might face structural problems such as early retirement.
   However, I think it isn’t the right time to reduce the term of service. First of all, it is the end of the Roh government. Looking in to the past, it is the season when each candidate presents rosy commitments. Although the policy is suggested with good intentions, it is hard to convince people that a reduction is necessary during the period. Moreover, this reduction should be considered and initiated over a long period of time.

*Kim Suk-jun (alias, Colonel in the army)
    I understand that the birth rate is reducing, and there needs more labor participation in the economy. The fact is that people often forget the fact that the economy and the whole nation’s affairs are based on strong military power. National defense is a fundamental need for everything that we desire. Seeing the case of the U.S, for example, we can see that a strong military force should be based on Korea becoming a wealthier country. Of course it would be nice if we could introduce a recruiting system such as U.S does, but we currently don’t have enough money of the ability to do that. Hence, 2 years of compulsory military service is the best way to defend our nation.