First, how I use the terms:
By “conscription”, any manning of the military through mandatory induction.
By “National Service”, a mandatory period of service to the State, usually military, but service in some vital civilian departments is acceptable alternative.
With the modifier “Universal” attached to either term, that EVERYONE HAS to perform it, with only extreme duress exemptions.
The post-1970s U.S. has enough of a population base plus the technological resources for a less labor-intensive military, so that in peacetime it can maintain a sufficient all-volunteer force (PROVIDED the government gives enough monetary incentives for recruits to choose this over civvie street, and to retain experienced staff. During the '94-'99 boom economy we couldn’t have dreamt of maintaining 1990 force levels w/o boosting salaries and bonuses WAY above what was done. The raw recruit today makes $1,005 a month.) The “astonishingly low casualty rate” in the Gulf is precisely because of this – the U.S. does NOT use massed waves of cannon fodder on foot. It uses a sophisticated force staffed by highly motivated people to direct maximum damage in the other fellow’s direction.
In any case, the mechanism of conscription during the Korea/1950s/Vietnam Era, and that planned for any future mobilization, is “selective” , not Universal. There were numerous workarounds and even if you did nothing you could luckily “draw a high number” and never get called up. and if you were, for instance, a recognized Religious Objector, you could be assigned alternate National Service.
I’m willing to bet that one reason true Universal Service was never used for the modern US forces, (the closest was WW2’s total war footing) is the aforementioned population. In relative peacetime only a few hundred thousand new entrants a year are required. A system that could absorb a couple of million 18-year-olds (or 21-year-olds, if you defer till college graduation) a year, even if for 3/4 of them it’s just a 6-month National Guard tour, would be unaffordable. After all, for every 10 of those raw conscripts you’re going to need about 3 experienced NCOs to mind them, with THEIR corresponding superiors (And they don’t grow on trees). Or else, you can end up with a huge Force of “paper” units made up of half-arsed-trained cannon fodder whose salaries you still have to pay until the day they get slaughtered or routed.
The points for/against that the OP describes are, ostensibly, from a source in which they’re being parodied. However there are some that can be worked with.
All the (a) thru (d) “pros” are, as it is, selling points of the professional military. THEY tell THE POTENTIAL RECRUIT that they will provide him a job, a skill, education assistance, etc.
The arguments against are also satirical, except that argument (a) is true – the military would much rather have someone who asked to be there and can thus be properly motivated.
My inclination would be to prefer the all-volunteer force, or in its place a truly Universal National Service, NOT necessarily military, with no work-arounds or exceptions. You could perform it through a year of painting inner city schools, or transporting poor rural elderly to medical care in the nearest town, or what have you. And be “drafted” into it if you haven’t voluntarily entered a qualifying program by a certain age (21?). Provide educational, loan or employment benefits upon satisfactory completion.
OTOH, there is one argument about mandatory National Service (military, not necessarily “Universal”) that I found somewhat seductive. I read it something like 4 years ago in a leftie publication, maybe Utne’s, heck if I can recall the cite. I reproduce the gist of it as I recall it for what it may add:
That as things stand right now, too many of the people who go into the military are either disadvantaged social/ethnic groups who need the money or the “way out of the ghetto”, or people who come from a family military tradition; while too many of the people going for the fast track of business, politics, academia, etc. do not even think about spending a day in uniform in their lives. This, the authors said, creates the risk of a society in which the people in charge of the economy, academia and civil government, and the people in the Services, become two distinct classes on the way to becoming castes, mutually looking down patronizingly at one another. They go on to say, having at least a part of the military be conscripted through NS would force a unifying link between the two groups. Have some people in the elite learn what the serviceman goes through before rah-rahing the economy into war, and infuse into the military some fresh ideas. And, who knows, maybe some highly talented person will decide AFTER trying it that he can contribute more to the world going from Seaman-to-Admiral than going from mail clerk to CEO.
It would require one key condition: that a truly blind draft lottery be in place, and that the luck of the draw be enforced absolutely. ZERO workarounds other than valid religious objection or extreme family duress – and those send you into civilian NS. No future Dan Quayles or Bill Clintons: Law/Medical School will just wait; or you finish it, but then your career WILL wait while you serve.