Worth thinking of the downsides. The British Army is effective because of it's professionalism. It is difficult to coerce people who don't have it in them to become soldiers. I'm also pretty sure the military don't want to have to wet nurse conscripts as they tend to be unreliable and poor fighters.
There is also the issue the ExUSSR countries have faced with large numbers of well trained ex soldiers and nothing legitimate to do. Training individuals with antisocial tendencies to use PE4 and firearms can have it's drawbacks.
Rich
Good to see some sense in this thread.
Bring back national service is the typical kneejerk reaction in situations like these, we see the same thing in Holland.
So I guess you people want well trained rioters that know how to shoot straight? Well, good luck with that.
A lack of national service is probably the least important factor in why people act the way they do. Those rioters that come from low income/high crime areas, well it's easy to understand why they do what they do, so let's not waste cyberspace on that.
As far as understanding why the middle class youths joined in the "fun" goes, have a look at what has changed in society, as far as the nuclear family is concerned.
It used to be that mom stayed at home and dad brought home the bacon. This is no longer the case. Most families that are now considered to be middle class, are double income families. This means that the young'uns do a lot of their groing up with mom and dad off to work, or both of them at home, tired. In order to keep the kids, who obviously want attention, out of their hair, they buy them things like playstations and whatnot. These then take the place of parental attention.
In an ideal world one parent would bring home the bacon, one parent would be at home when the kids are. Things have changed for many of us, with predictable (with hindsight) results.