Since national service is state enforced discipline, it should increase stability and reduce crime (it also brings some miscreants in and pacifies some left-wing and right-wing militants by bringing them into the fold of the state), so it could reduce radicalism as well.
National Service already reduces crime indirectly by reducing unemployment.
If war readiness is to increase stability (I suppose that it should, but stability is so easily maxed that I don’t think about it very often) then both “Military Spending” and “National Service” could increase it, with “National Service” being more cost-effective than “Military Spending” once “Military Spending” is at a certain equilibrium.
I don’t know what to say about radicalism. A National Service makes its members much more capable of engaging in radicalism. It does not necessarily make them more motivated to do so, this would depend on the radicalization climate for “Patriot” and on whatever other demographic groups were entering the National Service.
It seems like, on the balance sheets, it would increase the threat of violent radicalism, because there are many policies which may make different groups more or less willing to engage in radicalism, but this is the only policy which directly makes them more capable of organized insurrection. “Health”, “Education” and “Technology” all make the population more capable (but generally less willing) of insurrection, but this is the only direct policy to increase the military capability of the civilian population.
1 Like
I agree generally with your assessment, but I think that’s the point of discipline, someone may have militant tendencies, but perhaps they can be oriented towards the state. For example, the right sector in Ukraine, whose leader was appointed as an advisor to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and then withdrew from party, because he didn’t want his revolutionary party to undermine the state, but strengthen it.
Of course, such a decision could also spectacularly backfire and allow them to capture state power.