.
What I seem to be picking up from you Deranged Nasat is that your belief goes beyond simply not wanting a draft, you don't want soldiers period!
So let us play a little thought experiment shall we, I'm sure you've done these at Cambridge. Let strip Britain of all it's military. Nuclear and conventional. Everything above policeman's weapons. No British navy, army, Royal marines, SAS, and also your NATO alliance. No MI-6 as well. You would continue to possess all UK civil law, all thousand years plus. With no military there would no need for any uncivilized mutual defense pacts with the barbaric Americans.
All other nations still possess all their current forces.
Ready? Here's the question, from the word go, how many days do you think you'd last.
.
How many days until France and Germany start sniffing around your fishing grounds, until the Norwegians take away your north seas oil and gas fields. Might be a good time for Scotland to declared independance. Just did a fast google your country imports FAT. In fact you import a lot of things, things other friendly nations might want. Things you can no longer protect. Like inbound supertankers. May be the perfect time to go green. What effect on the fragile UK economy having 425,000 soldiers out of work over night. And how many brits work in your defense industry? You remember the aren't actual terrorist people, coming to pay you a visit. Have you looked up the word "janissary" yet?
But don't worry - you have laws.
T'girl
I did say I'd avoid this in future, so first off I apologize for turning 180 on that, but this is just brief. No,
T'Girl, I am not saying "get rid of all militaries". It would be nice if we could, but of course we can't. We can, however, lessen the need for them by behaving in a co-operative manner, recognizing the importance of each and every one of us, rather than hiding behind a wall of guns pre-emptively pointed at anyone who you encounter. My family in fact has a history of military service. It's not my fault if an argument against a draft or the attitude that young men are automatically seen as a resource for war is taken to mean "scrap the military". No, what I'm saying is "scrap the attitude that your sons have some sort of obligation to be soldiers and that they should fight for their nation". These ideas lead only to conflict. The only things worth fighting for are safety and freedom, your own and others. Because humanity is the only universal. Nations mean nothing. Nations, cultures, religions, governments- they all come and go, they fall and split and are assimilated into one another, like shifting sands. The only universal is people. Yet, in every one of those transitory nations and cultures, young men have been conditioned into believing their purpose is to fight for those nations, to legitimate and justify something that in the long run means little.
Militaries are a necessary evil, but turn the military into a way of life-which you do if you begin to see your sons in terms of breeding future soldiers- and you provoke the very conditions that boost the need for a military. Someone has to make a stand and step back from this. This doesn't mean "no military", it means "no promoting the military as an obligation and as the solution to all our problems". I have no problem with the idea of my fuiture children becoming soldiers- if that's what they truly want, and they are following the calling of their heart rather than submitting to someone elses' idea of what they should be and who they are. Humans are a warrior race. A great many will and do find the calling of their heart leads to military work. However, such work should be to ensure the freedoms and protection of the people, not be systematically removing those freedoms and protections. Thomas Paine wrote in his "Rights of Man" that the enlisted soldier lives under a double oppression- that of being forced to obey his superiors and submit to their whims, and of being ostracized from the community.
Here's something else you militiaristic types have yet to learn; true strength comes from co-operation, from alliance and mutual care and empathy. "Run around pointing guns lest those filthy French and Germans and despicable Norwegians and traitorous Scots steal all our booty" is not the point of the army. If this sort of active competition were the point, we might as well launch an invasion of France right now and do some pillaging. Here's the thing- in previous centuries that
was the point, because we Europeans were a militiaristic, warlike people concerned not with true strength but with selfish, competitive resource- and territory-grabbing. Our young men had a "duty" to be warriors if we decided they should be. The eventual result of all this was, more or less, the First World War, and the fallout of this led, more or less, into the Second World War.
The problem isn't "having a military". The problem is "living and breathing the military and constructing a concept of our sons as nothing but a resource for that military". Do you realize how many boys and young men have suffered, died, been arbritarily tortured or murdered in vast quantities worldwide due to this idea that "young man=soldier"? If all young men and boys are potential soldiers, they can never enjoy true civilian status in your eyes. Why not go into, say, Iran and cut down any young male you see? Plenty of militaries and governments do just that. They are nothing but enemy soldiers, and a threat to you. Your sons are nothing but enemy soldiers in their eyes. And so it goes on, conflict after conflict, death after death, and those of us who say "no. My son is not a tool in your constant conflicts. He is something precious" are condemned for refusing to participate.
Here's something else,
T'Girl. If your young men have a "duty" to enlist to protect America, the young men of countries you invade must obviously have the same "duty" to enlist and defend
their nation against
you. Surely that is only logical. So the more you attack and kill these "threat" organizations in their own countries, the more their young men will answer, or be told and forced to answer, the call of "duty" and fight against you. The more of each other's sons you kill, the more will have to enlist to fight the threat posed by the other.
The more aggressive you are, the more other nations will insist that their sons do their "duty" by picking up weapons and protecting against you. The more of them pick up weapons and prepare to fight you, the bigger the threat grows and the more you turn to your sons and say "we're under threat! Do your duty, young men, by enlisting!" The more your army swells, the bigger a threat you become to them, and so on and so forth. You become mired in continuous conflict and both your nation's sons suffer. Unless someone takes a stand and displays the strength and courage to say "no".
That's about as far into left field as I've ever seen anyone go. 
