3 ms·

You cant run a modern army with a majority enlisted force the training requirements are so high both in time and cost. Don't take this the wrong way but the US

You cant run a modern army with a majority enlisted force the training requirements are so high both in time and cost. Don't take this the wrong way but the USA needs to get over regarding the founders odd ideas about standing armies it just doesn't work in a modern society.

dforrestwilson 8y ago
The bigger more meaningful question is do we need a standing military of this size and scope, or can we shrink it down some?
int_19h 8y ago
Sure you can. There are still several First World countries that rely on conscription in Europe - some even reverted recently, in fact, since the ongoing hostile talk with Russia. And one of those countries is Switzerland, which has a world-class army, better in fact than many of its European neighbors without conscription. Now, conscripted soldiers work better for some things and worse for others. They work better on defense, especially on their own territories - but that's what the good guys are supposed to be doing, no? And it's not like you can't still have a professional volunteer (from those who completed mandatory service) component, for things that require more training.
- gaius 8y ago
  And one of those countries is Switzerland, which has a world-class army, better in fact than many of its European neighbors without conscription Citation needed. The Swiss have done a pretty good job of defending the Vatican of course, but when was their military last tested for real? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Switzerland#Contemporary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Switzerlan... (the answer is WW1)
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Which ones? France the Uk and Germany don't And modern warfare is no longer a case of giving some one 6 weeks training and a clapped out old rifel as old as their father. Even late 70's early 80's the part trained Argentinian draftees didn't really stand a chance against 2 parra in the Falkland's the Junta evacuated a lot of the professional troops before then end

dforrestwilson 8y ago

The bigger more meaningful question is do we need a standing military of this size and scope, or can we shrink it down some?

int_19h 8y ago

Sure you can. There are still several First World countries that rely on conscription in Europe - some even reverted recently, in fact, since the ongoing hostile talk with Russia. And one of those countries is Switzerland, which has a world-class army, better in fact than many of its European neighbors without conscription. Now, conscripted soldiers work better for some things and worse for others. They work better on defense, especially on their own territories - but that's what the good guys are supposed to be doing, no? And it's not like you can't still have a professional volunteer (from those who completed mandatory service) component, for things that require more training.

gaius 8y ago
And one of those countries is Switzerland, which has a world-class army, better in fact than many of its European neighbors without conscription Citation needed. The Swiss have done a pretty good job of defending the Vatican of course, but when was their military last tested for real? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Switzerland#Contemporary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Switzerlan... (the answer is WW1)
C1sc0cat 8y ago
Which ones? France the Uk and Germany don't And modern warfare is no longer a case of giving some one 6 weeks training and a clapped out old rifel as old as their father. Even late 70's early 80's the part trained Argentinian draftees didn't really stand a chance against 2 parra in the Falkland's the Junta evacuated a lot of the professional troops before then end