Um, what? What kind of question is this?
Ok, first off, some disclosure: I am an American and spent six voluntary years in the United States Navy. I also volunteered some years to the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary.
That said,
The answer to question #1 is ...COMPLETELY DISAGREE. Involuntary serivce into anything (military, medical, whatever) goes against principles that I hold dear. Unless the country is at war, and I mean threat-of-inavsion or world-would-end-if-not-fought type war, not Iraq or Vietnam type war, then the military should be a paid, voluntary and professional organization.
The second question is bullshit-on-a-stick. Socio eco what? Voluntary recruiting allows anyone to volunteer, regardless of their net-worth. So, I assume that the question is based on that since poorer people tend to have less opportunities in the civilian world that they tend to make up the majority of recruits.
Bullshit-on-a-stick...deep fried, too. Joining the military does not sustain socioeconomic inequality. In fact, it does the opposite. By taking those who have less access to healthcare, less chance of promotion, less desirable housing and less of a hopeful outlook on life and giving them the chance to apply themselves and receive those benefits for themselves and their families, we help break the "socioeconomic" cycle, if there was one ot begin with.
My time in the military was not my most favorite time of my life, however, it did provide me valuable education and training that I still leverage in my professional career.