6 ms·

How do you motivate a non-existent volunteer? If not enough people are volunteering for the military, how else are you supposed to defend your country? It's no

How do you motivate a non-existent volunteer? If not enough people are volunteering for the military, how else are you supposed to defend your country? It's not as good a situation as if you had an all-volunteer army, but that doesn't seem to be an option for Sweden.

icebraining 10y ago
The civilian world deals with the problem of having few applicants every day without resorting to manhandling people.
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  If you're proposing higher pay for soldiers, then you go from an army of slaves to an army of mercenaries. Swedish society is already primed to accept conscription, and it's not totally ineffective. It may be the most cost-effective solution to the problem.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    >If you're proposing higher pay for soldiers, then you go from an army of slaves to an army of mercenaries. Is that such a bad thing? I'd rather have an army of mercenaries any day over an army of slaves. The mercenaries are serving voluntarily at least, and they're likely to be far more effective in their duties as soldiers. Sure, there's some ethical concerns with it, but far less than with slavery IMO.
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      IIRC, this question came up with Westmoreland in the Vietnam War. The US was considering transitioning to a volunteer army (which did happen after the war), and a reporter asked Westmoreland what he thought of the idea. He was adamantly opposed to an army of mercenaries, and the reporter shot back by asking if he preferred an army of slaves. Westmoreland replied that he didn't want such insulting language used of "our patriotic draftees" -- meaning that he had internalized an if-by-whiskey argument. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey)
LanceH 10y ago
If not enough people are joining and you conscript people to fight for you, you don't have a country, you have slaveowners.

icebraining 10y ago

The civilian world deals with the problem of having few applicants every day without resorting to manhandling people.

jackcosgrove 10y ago
If you're proposing higher pay for soldiers, then you go from an army of slaves to an army of mercenaries. Swedish society is already primed to accept conscription, and it's not totally ineffective. It may be the most cost-effective solution to the problem.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >If you're proposing higher pay for soldiers, then you go from an army of slaves to an army of mercenaries. Is that such a bad thing? I'd rather have an army of mercenaries any day over an army of slaves. The mercenaries are serving voluntarily at least, and they're likely to be far more effective in their duties as soldiers. Sure, there's some ethical concerns with it, but far less than with slavery IMO.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    IIRC, this question came up with Westmoreland in the Vietnam War. The US was considering transitioning to a volunteer army (which did happen after the war), and a reporter asked Westmoreland what he thought of the idea. He was adamantly opposed to an army of mercenaries, and the reporter shot back by asking if he preferred an army of slaves. Westmoreland replied that he didn't want such insulting language used of "our patriotic draftees" -- meaning that he had internalized an if-by-whiskey argument. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey)

LanceH 10y ago

If not enough people are joining and you conscript people to fight for you, you don't have a country, you have slaveowners.