4 ms·

>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

by 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.

by Kenji 10y ago

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.