A more detailed analysis of the gains and losses of shorter military service is needed. If the worst situation happens, which is war with North Korea, it will cause huge damage to the nation regardless of winning or losing. People who agree with this policy say that since high-tech machines have been developed, we can no longer judge a nation's defense capabilities only by numbers. When the reduction in the period of military service is implemented, the deficient population in the demographic cliff era could be supplemented. It also has the advantages of reducing the burden on youth and improving the welfare of the military. On the other hand, people who disagree with this policy state that, despite the importance of high-tech machines and strategies, the number of physical units is meaningful in itself. This plan can cause inefficiency in the budget and a decrease in the quality of soldiers. They also claim that the policy of the shorter period of military service is populist policy to attract the daze of young people. As the Republic of Korea is in a state of truce, that security is important. The pros and cons are strained and the question remains if, we can keep security even when we shorten the period of military service. What choice should we make to avoid the worst situation in the Korean Peninsula?
저작권자 © 중앙헤럴드 무단전재 및 재배포 금지