4 ms·

Instead of forcing people to do something (through conscription), it's ideal to make people want to do it voluntarily (through providing good pay, conditions an

Instead of forcing people to do something (through conscription), it's ideal to make people want to do it voluntarily (through providing good pay, conditions and maybe generous matching of retirement contributions etc)

DSingularity 6y ago
Yeah? You sure about that? What you will end up with is more propaganda, war glorification, and more targeting of teenagers.
- yongjik 6y ago
  It's not like the war machine will stop feeding more propaganda and glorifying war, just because they get to take a year or two out of every citizen. After all, you want these soldiers to be ready to fight and think dying for the country is the greatest possible honor. Under conscription, that would be everyone.
fsloth 6y ago
I don't think you understand the situation. Sweden has a population of 10M. Finland, next to Russia, 5M. Russia - 150M. The power imbalance is so large that the only way of making a credible defence strategy is by having the capability to mobilize a significant portion of the population for professional quality defence. This is simply not feasible without a conscription. No, I did not like my conscription (Finland) two decades ago - but I completely understand why it's necessary.
- toyg 6y ago
  I agree but with one nitpick: you don’t get “professional quality defence” with conscription, especially if people are not called in for refreshers every few months. What you get, though, is effectively a sleeping guerrilla organization that can be mobilised to resist occupation. Very basic military skills can be very effective in such a scenario, which is the most likely one for countries bordering states with overwhelmingly larger arsenals.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Indeed. When an occupation begins such a quickly-established guerilla organization, especially if many civilians keep weapons and are willing to resist, is a huge ordeal for an army of occupation. Any potential aggressor, whatever the imbalance, h
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Indeed. When an occupation begins such a quickly-established guerilla organization, especially if many civilians keep weapons and are willing to resist, becomes a huge ordeal for an army of occupation. Any potential aggressor, whatever the imbalance of forces, has to take it into account. Where other major parameters (such as geography, climate and existing infrastructures) favor this guerilla force, then even a huge imbalance may be void.
  - fsloth 6y ago
    Disagree. This highly dependent. For example, Finnish Defence Forces are capable of very professional response to external threats. Remember this leverages the entire eligible male population that is highly educated, motivated, and culturally aligned to follow chain of command. There is also the backbone of professional, university trained officer core who manage all of it. Some of the most technical service branches like the air forces utilize professionals extensively as well.
pfranz 6y ago
I think the problem is it becomes a way to bribe/exploit poorer people. I've always liked the idea of mandatory civil service; one option being the military. Having family in the military and being exposed elsewhere, it's interesting to get a closer view of the parts of government we pay for, like missile silos or aircraft carriers, but often put into a black box. I would hope it would make people more civically aware and engaged. I've been curious about contributing to something like 18F or US Digital Service. Do any countries do this?
waihtis 6y ago
Finnish person here. Disagree, as you end up with a much smaller army at a higher maintenance cost. From a pure defense perspective, nothing beats a conscription system in efficiency. Here in Finland (population about 5,5 million) we have a reserve army of 900,000 people. With a pure salary army, it could be maybe 2-5% of that. Cons: takes 6-12 months away from your life. But my and virtually anyone I know has the opinion is that it is also a very valuable life experience and I carry many lifelong friends from that time period.
- alanfranz 6y ago
  Italian here. I was in one of the first cohorts which were not forced to serve in the army. Here, conscription was even considered a way to balance sex-related work opportunities, since it was a burden on men only, hence women who entered the workforce were a bit advantaged. I agree that the experience can be good, but YMMV a lot: many of my friends were happy to serve and learned a lot, but many others were shocked and some never fully recovered. Such a life won't fit everybody. Also, it takes quite a lot of time in your life even when you would like to do something else. I think that a "serve your country" 6/12 months period, to be done by everybody by the time you're 25 or so, that you can plan, could be useful.
Barrin92 6y ago
other replies have pointed to costs but I just want to reiterate the last point that in our particular German case the principle behind it is the "Staatsbürger in Uniform" (citizen in uniform), the idea is to kind of precisely get some people into the military who wouldn't naturally want to go there, because those are the people who can provide crucial oversight over military processes, and prevent the miltary from being purely professional. This is because serving in the military is a civic duty, not just a sort of commercial service. The military is not just supposed to be a hired group of fighters.
- fierarul 6y ago
  This is a perfect explanation why many political positions could be akin jury duty. What if the mayor election would be among 4 randomly picked citizens?
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    The ancient Athenians used something similar to select their leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Ancient_Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Ancient_Athens EDIT: I remember this from a Historia Civilis video: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q You should watch the whole thing (it's pretty interesting) but skip to 8m00s to watch the part about sortition.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    I agree, what I also find very surprising about this topic is when it comes up with my American friends is that they seem so alienated by the concept. Which I find surprising, because my (admittedly somewhat limited) understanding is that the fear of established, professionalised, closed-up armies is actually a very ur-American idea, threatening peace, equality and so on. I guess the same could be applied to a lot of the over-militarised police and border agency situations that hit the news all the time. Civic oversight and less professionalisation, more popular control I always thought would be natural ideas across the pond.
    - 6y ago
drieddust 6y ago
IMHO Army recruitment age youngster haven't developed enough to think this deeply. It is a journey some might like only after joining in so there should be exit path available to those who don't like it. Secondly money and conditions can't be universal drivers. On a side note I feel trend of letting youngster do whatever they want even during school years is counter productive. For example children who misbehave even once in a while with teachers and sometimes parents even are taken for psyche evaluation immediately. IMHO children does need direction and guidance until they understand the consequences of their choices.
pelliphant 6y ago
I disagree. If everyone does it, it will more closely represent the general population. Those that would volunteer are not necessarily the ones you would want. There are always going to be a social contract, things you have to do, like paying taxes. I would argue that defending the country is a reasonable thing to include in that social contract.

DSingularity 6y ago

Yeah? You sure about that? What you will end up with is more propaganda, war glorification, and more targeting of teenagers.

yongjik 6y ago
It's not like the war machine will stop feeding more propaganda and glorifying war, just because they get to take a year or two out of every citizen. After all, you want these soldiers to be ready to fight and think dying for the country is the greatest possible honor. Under conscription, that would be everyone.

fsloth 6y ago

I don't think you understand the situation. Sweden has a population of 10M. Finland, next to Russia, 5M. Russia - 150M. The power imbalance is so large that the only way of making a credible defence strategy is by having the capability to mobilize a significant portion of the population for professional quality defence. This is simply not feasible without a conscription. No, I did not like my conscription (Finland) two decades ago - but I completely understand why it's necessary.

toyg 6y ago
I agree but with one nitpick: you don’t get “professional quality defence” with conscription, especially if people are not called in for refreshers every few months. What you get, though, is effectively a sleeping guerrilla organization that can be mobilised to resist occupation. Very basic military skills can be very effective in such a scenario, which is the most likely one for countries bordering states with overwhelmingly larger arsenals.
- natmaka 6y ago
  Indeed. When an occupation begins such a quickly-established guerilla organization, especially if many civilians keep weapons and are willing to resist, is a huge ordeal for an army of occupation. Any potential aggressor, whatever the imbalance, h
- natmaka 6y ago
  Indeed. When an occupation begins such a quickly-established guerilla organization, especially if many civilians keep weapons and are willing to resist, becomes a huge ordeal for an army of occupation. Any potential aggressor, whatever the imbalance of forces, has to take it into account. Where other major parameters (such as geography, climate and existing infrastructures) favor this guerilla force, then even a huge imbalance may be void.
- fsloth 6y ago
  Disagree. This highly dependent. For example, Finnish Defence Forces are capable of very professional response to external threats. Remember this leverages the entire eligible male population that is highly educated, motivated, and culturally aligned to follow chain of command. There is also the backbone of professional, university trained officer core who manage all of it. Some of the most technical service branches like the air forces utilize professionals extensively as well.

pfranz 6y ago

I think the problem is it becomes a way to bribe/exploit poorer people. I've always liked the idea of mandatory civil service; one option being the military. Having family in the military and being exposed elsewhere, it's interesting to get a closer view of the parts of government we pay for, like missile silos or aircraft carriers, but often put into a black box. I would hope it would make people more civically aware and engaged. I've been curious about contributing to something like 18F or US Digital Service. Do any countries do this?

waihtis 6y ago

Finnish person here. Disagree, as you end up with a much smaller army at a higher maintenance cost. From a pure defense perspective, nothing beats a conscription system in efficiency. Here in Finland (population about 5,5 million) we have a reserve army of 900,000 people. With a pure salary army, it could be maybe 2-5% of that. Cons: takes 6-12 months away from your life. But my and virtually anyone I know has the opinion is that it is also a very valuable life experience and I carry many lifelong friends from that time period.

alanfranz 6y ago
Italian here. I was in one of the first cohorts which were not forced to serve in the army. Here, conscription was even considered a way to balance sex-related work opportunities, since it was a burden on men only, hence women who entered the workforce were a bit advantaged. I agree that the experience can be good, but YMMV a lot: many of my friends were happy to serve and learned a lot, but many others were shocked and some never fully recovered. Such a life won't fit everybody. Also, it takes quite a lot of time in your life even when you would like to do something else. I think that a "serve your country" 6/12 months period, to be done by everybody by the time you're 25 or so, that you can plan, could be useful.

Barrin92 6y ago

other replies have pointed to costs but I just want to reiterate the last point that in our particular German case the principle behind it is the "Staatsbürger in Uniform" (citizen in uniform), the idea is to kind of precisely get some people into the military who wouldn't naturally want to go there, because those are the people who can provide crucial oversight over military processes, and prevent the miltary from being purely professional. This is because serving in the military is a civic duty, not just a sort of commercial service. The military is not just supposed to be a hired group of fighters.

fierarul 6y ago
This is a perfect explanation why many political positions could be akin jury duty. What if the mayor election would be among 4 randomly picked citizens?
- vulcan01 6y ago
  The ancient Athenians used something similar to select their leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Ancient_Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Ancient_Athens EDIT: I remember this from a Historia Civilis video: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q You should watch the whole thing (it's pretty interesting) but skip to 8m00s to watch the part about sortition.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  I agree, what I also find very surprising about this topic is when it comes up with my American friends is that they seem so alienated by the concept. Which I find surprising, because my (admittedly somewhat limited) understanding is that the fear of established, professionalised, closed-up armies is actually a very ur-American idea, threatening peace, equality and so on. I guess the same could be applied to a lot of the over-militarised police and border agency situations that hit the news all the time. Civic oversight and less professionalisation, more popular control I always thought would be natural ideas across the pond.
  - 6y ago

drieddust 6y ago

IMHO Army recruitment age youngster haven't developed enough to think this deeply. It is a journey some might like only after joining in so there should be exit path available to those who don't like it. Secondly money and conditions can't be universal drivers. On a side note I feel trend of letting youngster do whatever they want even during school years is counter productive. For example children who misbehave even once in a while with teachers and sometimes parents even are taken for psyche evaluation immediately. IMHO children does need direction and guidance until they understand the consequences of their choices.

pelliphant 6y ago

I disagree. If everyone does it, it will more closely represent the general population. Those that would volunteer are not necessarily the ones you would want. There are always going to be a social contract, things you have to do, like paying taxes. I would argue that defending the country is a reasonable thing to include in that social contract.