3 ms·
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 conscripti
by 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 agoItalian 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.