15 ms·

>'if this isn't for you then you can go home' I did compulsory military service, including in a leadership role. "If you don't do what you're told, you don't g

by zmb_ 10y ago

>'if this isn't for you then you can go home' I did compulsory military service, including in a leadership role. "If you don't do what you're told, you don't get go home next weekend." Worked very well for conscripts, who usually get to go home for many weekends (unless on exercises). There are also many smaller privileges you can take a way for smaller infractions. Although when you have a defensive military that does not go around the world fighting wars, and whose only objective is to retain the independence of your own country, most conscripts take it as their civic responsibility and don't cause problems. Those who are fundamentally unsuited for military usually ended up getting discharged quickly. Most before ever stepping into service. >Conscription seems counter-productive to me. Britain has 150k active military personnel with 80k reserves. Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an aggressive neighbor. How do you do that without conscription?

ckastner 10y ago
> I did compulsory military service, including in a leadership role. "If you don't do what you're told, you don't get go home next weekend." Worked very well for conscripts, who usually get to go home for many weekends (unless on exercises). As a former conscript, this was definitely the ultimate motivator. Conscript service was so incredibly dull that one would do almost anything just to get off-base over the weekend.
Kenji 10y ago
>Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an aggressive neighbor. How do you do that without conscription? Well... you PAY THEM (enough)? You make the workplace worthwhile and attractive, like you have to for every job ever? How do you get enough nurses? Policemen? Engineers? You conscript them all? This is a deeply authoritarian mindset and it concerns me. Conscription hurts troop morale. Let people serve in the military when they want to serve.
- oblio 10y ago
  It doesn't really work. Everyone getting into the army knows that they're potentially risking their life. Something which doesn't really happen in most modern jobs. You'd have to pay a ton of money to get middle class citizens into the army and at that point you'd probably spend half of your budget on the military. I don't see this as something really authoritarian if your country does have a very aggressive neighbor.
- dragandj 10y ago
  Heh, nice idea, pay them. With what money? Even Switzerland would have a really difficult time with that. The problem with small countries is that, well, they are small and poor. Even if you pay small wages, 200k is still a lot of paychecks, that has to be funded from taxes to the small population. For the record, I am against military conscription.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    Taxes and printed money (so basically you pay with taxes and inflation). Sure if you have to tax so much and inflate so much that everyone not in the military is broke and starving then it's close to the same thing as just conscripting them, but at least the cost is then shared by the entire populace rather than young men in most cases and young men and women in Swedens, and results in more proper compensation of soldiers. In a low wage + draft scenario you're basically sending the young (usually poor) of a country off to die so the seniors (wealthier than the young) can still enjoy holding property. Then the surviving young come back and are getting fleeced just the same as they were pre-war by the people whose status they just defended. If not fighting in a war is not a viable option then it should at least result in massive wealth transfer. Hell, I'd rather see straight up seizure of wealth to pay for the military over a draft.
BurningFrog 10y ago
A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.
- 67726e 10y ago
  > It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Afghanistan would beg to differ... > Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself. Unless the goal of fighting a war is to wipe the opposing side off the face of the earth, no, it's a credible defense. You bleed the enemy until they lose the will to fight.
  - 013a 10y ago
    His argument isn't that you need air and naval. Its that air and naval are, generally, more cost effective.
    - 67726e 10y ago
      No, he flat out said that a bunch of dudes with guns are not a deterrent in this day and age. If that's not what he said, let him speak for himself.
  - icambron 10y ago
    > Afghanistan would beg to differ. You're not looking at this from the Afghan perspective. From the American and Russian perspective, yes, occupying Afghanistan is a painful deathtrap. But for the Afghans their occupation is...also a painful deathtrap. Eventually winning (or even sort of winning) a war of low-tech attrition involves sacrificing a lot of lives, losing political control, and having foreign soldiers soldiers patrol your territory imposing their own laws. Afghanistan has to go through all this because they don't have a credible way to deter an invasion. That's why they keep getting invaded!
    - 10y ago
Arizhel 10y ago
>Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an aggressive neighbor. How do you do that without conscription? Just go without, and tell the population that you don't have enough forces to serve as a deterrent, so if the neighbor decides to invade you're just going to voluntarily cede any territory they ask for.
- dropit_sphere 10y ago
  Cute, but the tragedy of the commons means that you still might not get enough. The people allow the government a monopoly on violence in expectation that it will use it for their benefit. Putting the ultimate responsibility for national defense back on them is a betrayal of that trust.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    No, it's not. It is utterly impossible for the government to defend the nation without soldiers. It's also impossible for the government to create soldiers out of thin air; they have to come from the populace (or hire foreign mercenaries perhaps, but that has its own ethical problems). If the populace isn't willing to serve as soldiers in sufficient numbers, then it's impossible for the government to satisfy its responsibility to defend the nation. The people cannot blame the government for not defending the nation if the people are not willing to be part of that defense.
    - dropit_sphere 10y ago
      >The people cannot blame the government...If the people are not willing to be part of that defense. What about a person who would fight and not desert if conscripted, but would not volunteer? Are they "willing to be part of that defense," or not? I submit that most people fall in that category, and that conscription is aimed at them.
      - Arizhel 10y ago
_audakel 10y ago
Maybe you could focus on more tech related to battle ie drones. In the same way that machine guns make an enemy army's size not really matter, drones will do the same thing if they just have manpower

by zmb_ 10y ago

ckastner 10y ago

> I did compulsory military service, including in a leadership role. "If you don't do what you're told, you don't get go home next weekend." Worked very well for conscripts, who usually get to go home for many weekends (unless on exercises). As a former conscript, this was definitely the ultimate motivator. Conscript service was so incredibly dull that one would do almost anything just to get off-base over the weekend.

Kenji 10y ago

>Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an aggressive neighbor. How do you do that without conscription? Well... you PAY THEM (enough)? You make the workplace worthwhile and attractive, like you have to for every job ever? How do you get enough nurses? Policemen? Engineers? You conscript them all? This is a deeply authoritarian mindset and it concerns me. Conscription hurts troop morale. Let people serve in the military when they want to serve.

oblio 10y ago
It doesn't really work. Everyone getting into the army knows that they're potentially risking their life. Something which doesn't really happen in most modern jobs. You'd have to pay a ton of money to get middle class citizens into the army and at that point you'd probably spend half of your budget on the military. I don't see this as something really authoritarian if your country does have a very aggressive neighbor.
dragandj 10y ago
Heh, nice idea, pay them. With what money? Even Switzerland would have a really difficult time with that. The problem with small countries is that, well, they are small and poor. Even if you pay small wages, 200k is still a lot of paychecks, that has to be funded from taxes to the small population. For the record, I am against military conscription.
- Trundle 10y ago
  Taxes and printed money (so basically you pay with taxes and inflation). Sure if you have to tax so much and inflate so much that everyone not in the military is broke and starving then it's close to the same thing as just conscripting them, but at least the cost is then shared by the entire populace rather than young men in most cases and young men and women in Swedens, and results in more proper compensation of soldiers. In a low wage + draft scenario you're basically sending the young (usually poor) of a country off to die so the seniors (wealthier than the young) can still enjoy holding property. Then the surviving young come back and are getting fleeced just the same as they were pre-war by the people whose status they just defended. If not fighting in a war is not a viable option then it should at least result in massive wealth transfer. Hell, I'd rather see straight up seizure of wealth to pay for the military over a draft.

BurningFrog 10y ago

A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.

67726e 10y ago
> It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Afghanistan would beg to differ... > Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself. Unless the goal of fighting a war is to wipe the opposing side off the face of the earth, no, it's a credible defense. You bleed the enemy until they lose the will to fight.
- 013a 10y ago
  His argument isn't that you need air and naval. Its that air and naval are, generally, more cost effective.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    No, he flat out said that a bunch of dudes with guns are not a deterrent in this day and age. If that's not what he said, let him speak for himself.
- icambron 10y ago
  > Afghanistan would beg to differ. You're not looking at this from the Afghan perspective. From the American and Russian perspective, yes, occupying Afghanistan is a painful deathtrap. But for the Afghans their occupation is...also a painful deathtrap. Eventually winning (or even sort of winning) a war of low-tech attrition involves sacrificing a lot of lives, losing political control, and having foreign soldiers soldiers patrol your territory imposing their own laws. Afghanistan has to go through all this because they don't have a credible way to deter an invasion. That's why they keep getting invaded!
  - 10y ago

Arizhel 10y ago

>Now imagine you're a country with less than 10% of the population and need to produce a force of 200k soldiers in order to have a credible deterrent against an aggressive neighbor. How do you do that without conscription? Just go without, and tell the population that you don't have enough forces to serve as a deterrent, so if the neighbor decides to invade you're just going to voluntarily cede any territory they ask for.

dropit_sphere 10y ago
Cute, but the tragedy of the commons means that you still might not get enough. The people allow the government a monopoly on violence in expectation that it will use it for their benefit. Putting the ultimate responsibility for national defense back on them is a betrayal of that trust.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  No, it's not. It is utterly impossible for the government to defend the nation without soldiers. It's also impossible for the government to create soldiers out of thin air; they have to come from the populace (or hire foreign mercenaries perhaps, but that has its own ethical problems). If the populace isn't willing to serve as soldiers in sufficient numbers, then it's impossible for the government to satisfy its responsibility to defend the nation. The people cannot blame the government for not defending the nation if the people are not willing to be part of that defense.
  - dropit_sphere 10y ago
    >The people cannot blame the government...If the people are not willing to be part of that defense. What about a person who would fight and not desert if conscripted, but would not volunteer? Are they "willing to be part of that defense," or not? I submit that most people fall in that category, and that conscription is aimed at them.
    - Arizhel 10y ago

_audakel 10y ago

Maybe you could focus on more tech related to battle ie drones. In the same way that machine guns make an enemy army's size not really matter, drones will do the same thing if they just have manpower