3 ms·

I'm Swedish. I did 12 months of conscription at a time when everyone had to do it. The happiest country on the planet is Finland, which is even more gung-ho ab

by fl7305 3y ago

I'm Swedish. I did 12 months of conscription at a time when everyone had to do it. The happiest country on the planet is Finland, which is even more gung-ho about conscription than Sweden. The nordic countries, Israel, and Switzerland all have conscription and are also all in the top 10 happiest countries. (Side note: I think it'd be dangerous to abolish conscription in Finland. The Finns might get so over-happy that they start talking to strangers at bus stops and doing other things signifying that the end is near.) As far as the quality of the soldiers, I will give you that there are many countries where poorly trained conscripts are of very low quality. But as far as the nordic countries go, I'd say that the conscript soldiers in general are motivated and perform well in combat. Swedish UN troops composed of conscript soldiers who later volunteer for a 6 month UN mission have performed very well compared to "professional" UN troops from other countries. For instance, read up on "shootbat" (BA01) in Bosnia 1993-1994. I have heard many stories from Swedish ex-UN soldiers about how the Swedish battalions can solve pretty much any problem in the field since they are composed of people who work as auto mechanics, heavy equipment operators, electricians, civil engineers, computer programmers, etc in their civilian lives. At the same time, the "professional" soldiers from other countries get stuck as soon as there's a problem just a little bit outside of their army training.

Throw73747 3y ago
Sure Uncle Tom! If it's so great, why they have to force people into it? I was conscripted, I fired 20 bullets over 12 months, I get more practise over weekend of paintball! Rest was just bullying, cleaning toilets and scraping potatoes. They would not even let me drive a truck, because I was too "unreliable"!
- fl7305 3y ago
  (You might want to review the HN guidelines on commenting before you use more invectives) > If it's so great, why they have to force people into it? The fact that people are forced is not in opposition to the fact that they can still be motivated and capable once training is over. > I was conscripted, I fired 20 bullets over 12 months. Rest was just bullying, cleaning toilets and scraping potatoes. They would not even let me drive a truck, because I was too "unreliable"! Conscription sucked for you, sure. If everyone in that army receives that level of training, I will concede that it will be neither motivated nor capable. But we have plenty of examples where countries with conscription armies have performed well in armed conflicts. So the concept of conscription is not obviously ineffective. It depends on the implementation.
  - Throw73747 3y ago
    > So the concept of SLAVERY is not obviously ineffective. It depends on the implementation.
    - fl7305 3y ago
      Yes. The opposition to slavery is on ethical grounds. Not practical. But while you will find absolutely no support for slavery in the Nordic countries, there is 100.0% support for conscription in the Swedish parliament. The people forced into conscription in Sweden later end up voting for parties who support it. I doubt you'll find the same thing with many ex-slaves, right? The "huge opposition" that you keep bringing up just doesn't exist here.
      - Throw73747 3y ago
        51% of Swedish population opposes conscription tooth and nail. My "practical" opposition to slavery is that I will never ever become slave again, no matter if waht, if I am forced into it!
        fl7305 3y ago
        > 51% of Swedish population opposes conscription tooth and nail. Uhh, what? Did you just make that up? Funny how both the left party and the green party are for forced conscription in Sweden if there's such a strong opposition against it. You'd think they could get a lot of votes by campaigning against conscription? Which they don't...
        Throw73747 3y ago
        I was in Gothenburg. There is a statue for 51%, they were forced to stay at home and are the real victims, while 49% were pushed through meat grinder. So not just Uncle Tom, but also total misogynistic! Please do not ignore women, they are human beings and they matter too!
margalabargala 3y ago
You make a good point that there are exceptions. However, I was speaking somewhat more narrowly of active defensive combat situations. I think this is pretty different from the peacetime conscription practiced by Finland, Sweden, etc. I was speaking of the group that did not volunteer when given impetus to do so. Let's say that Finland were invaded by Russia. First, the currently-conscripted Finnish army would defend. Secondly, any additional volunteers from the populace that would like to help defend their homeland, will also help defend. Thirdly, if these first two groups are insufficient, additional conscription will be performed against the remaining population. My claim is that on average, the third group will perform more poorly than the second group. I don't mean to compare either to the first group.
- Throw73747 3y ago
  Finland has maybe 1000 men who are trained to NATO standards. If there is a Russian invasion, current conscript army become police force to handle local population and logistics, while NATO overtakes the country. It is not 1940 something.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    I think that's orthogonal to my point. Perhaps the specific example I gave of Finland does not hold, but I think the spirit of my example still does.
    - Throw73747 3y ago
      Well, I will give an actual example of non specific country that was invaded two year ago. First profi army becomes senior force, that trains whomever wants to hold a gun (second army). There is never political support to draft third army (like everyone). Remains of first army flee after government collapses. Political regime changes.
- fl7305 3y ago
  > First, the currently-conscripted Finnish army would defend. Secondly, any additional volunteers from the populace that would like to help defend their homeland, will also help defend. Thirdly, if these first two groups are insufficient, additional conscription will be performed against the remaining population. Finland has a population of 5.5 million people. They have almost 900 000 soldiers including reserves in their armed forces that they can mobilize in case of war. When war breaks out, they have already trained as many people as possible. There aren't many left to conscript at that point. It was the same for Sweden during the cold war. The armed forces would have numbered almost a million soldiers out of a population of 8 million. On top of that, an additional 1.5 million swedes were part of the total defence forces. > My claim is that on average, the third group will perform more poorly than the second group. I don't mean to compare either to the first group. The thinking in Sweden has always been that conscription leads to a democratization of the army, stronger popular support for the armed forces, and a stronger will to defend the country. So sure, if the country is invaded, the people who have not served before and refuse to do so even after an invasion will not be as good soldiers.

by fl7305 3y ago

Throw73747 3y ago

Sure Uncle Tom! If it's so great, why they have to force people into it? I was conscripted, I fired 20 bullets over 12 months, I get more practise over weekend of paintball! Rest was just bullying, cleaning toilets and scraping potatoes. They would not even let me drive a truck, because I was too "unreliable"!

fl7305 3y ago
(You might want to review the HN guidelines on commenting before you use more invectives) > If it's so great, why they have to force people into it? The fact that people are forced is not in opposition to the fact that they can still be motivated and capable once training is over. > I was conscripted, I fired 20 bullets over 12 months. Rest was just bullying, cleaning toilets and scraping potatoes. They would not even let me drive a truck, because I was too "unreliable"! Conscription sucked for you, sure. If everyone in that army receives that level of training, I will concede that it will be neither motivated nor capable. But we have plenty of examples where countries with conscription armies have performed well in armed conflicts. So the concept of conscription is not obviously ineffective. It depends on the implementation.
- Throw73747 3y ago
  > So the concept of SLAVERY is not obviously ineffective. It depends on the implementation.
  - fl7305 3y ago
    Yes. The opposition to slavery is on ethical grounds. Not practical. But while you will find absolutely no support for slavery in the Nordic countries, there is 100.0% support for conscription in the Swedish parliament. The people forced into conscription in Sweden later end up voting for parties who support it. I doubt you'll find the same thing with many ex-slaves, right? The "huge opposition" that you keep bringing up just doesn't exist here.
    - Throw73747 3y ago
      51% of Swedish population opposes conscription tooth and nail. My "practical" opposition to slavery is that I will never ever become slave again, no matter if waht, if I am forced into it!
      - fl7305 3y ago
        > 51% of Swedish population opposes conscription tooth and nail. Uhh, what? Did you just make that up? Funny how both the left party and the green party are for forced conscription in Sweden if there's such a strong opposition against it. You'd think they could get a lot of votes by campaigning against conscription? Which they don't...
        Throw73747 3y ago
        I was in Gothenburg. There is a statue for 51%, they were forced to stay at home and are the real victims, while 49% were pushed through meat grinder. So not just Uncle Tom, but also total misogynistic! Please do not ignore women, they are human beings and they matter too!

margalabargala 3y ago

You make a good point that there are exceptions. However, I was speaking somewhat more narrowly of active defensive combat situations. I think this is pretty different from the peacetime conscription practiced by Finland, Sweden, etc. I was speaking of the group that did not volunteer when given impetus to do so. Let's say that Finland were invaded by Russia. First, the currently-conscripted Finnish army would defend. Secondly, any additional volunteers from the populace that would like to help defend their homeland, will also help defend. Thirdly, if these first two groups are insufficient, additional conscription will be performed against the remaining population. My claim is that on average, the third group will perform more poorly than the second group. I don't mean to compare either to the first group.

Throw73747 3y ago
Finland has maybe 1000 men who are trained to NATO standards. If there is a Russian invasion, current conscript army become police force to handle local population and logistics, while NATO overtakes the country. It is not 1940 something.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  I think that's orthogonal to my point. Perhaps the specific example I gave of Finland does not hold, but I think the spirit of my example still does.
  - Throw73747 3y ago
    Well, I will give an actual example of non specific country that was invaded two year ago. First profi army becomes senior force, that trains whomever wants to hold a gun (second army). There is never political support to draft third army (like everyone). Remains of first army flee after government collapses. Political regime changes.
fl7305 3y ago
> First, the currently-conscripted Finnish army would defend. Secondly, any additional volunteers from the populace that would like to help defend their homeland, will also help defend. Thirdly, if these first two groups are insufficient, additional conscription will be performed against the remaining population. Finland has a population of 5.5 million people. They have almost 900 000 soldiers including reserves in their armed forces that they can mobilize in case of war. When war breaks out, they have already trained as many people as possible. There aren't many left to conscript at that point. It was the same for Sweden during the cold war. The armed forces would have numbered almost a million soldiers out of a population of 8 million. On top of that, an additional 1.5 million swedes were part of the total defence forces. > My claim is that on average, the third group will perform more poorly than the second group. I don't mean to compare either to the first group. The thinking in Sweden has always been that conscription leads to a democratization of the army, stronger popular support for the armed forces, and a stronger will to defend the country. So sure, if the country is invaded, the people who have not served before and refuse to do so even after an invasion will not be as good soldiers.