|
| Thread: Conscription |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 05, 2014 10:38 PM |
|
|
maybe I woke up to reality and stopped being an anarcho capitalist
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does your country have compulsory military service? If so do you support it? If you support it, don't you think it's discriminative to make it mandatory for one gender only, do you think that is a practice based on biology or tradition? Does modern warfare really require infantry masses, cannon fodder etc etc to win battles?
As you all might guess Israel has compulsory military service. The basic length is 3 years for boys and 2 for girls. Aside from that one year difference, there isn't that much of a discrimination between genders. I don't know if they're equal exactly, but there are women combatants, women pilots and high-ranking women officers, so there's not much more discrimination in the army than in society in general.
And yes, you still need infantry forces. Not to send them against tanks, of course, but to hold ground and buildings, to infiltrate areas where nothing else can move and some other specialized operations. The focus of the battle shifted with time, but some basics remain until today.
And for the biggest question, do I support compulsory conscription?... In theory, no. A professional army is better, because it's made up of people who want to be in it, people who stay there for a long time and therefore become very good at what they do and there are other advantages, I'm sure.
The disadvantage lies in organizing such an army. An army is made of much much more than a group of soldiers with guns. You need all sorts of people for a fully functioning army, ranging from cooks to doctors and engineers. So you would have to give them a heck of an incentive to join the army in the first place and doing so on a government budget is not as easy as it might sound. So, if a country can organize a well-rounded professional army, in my opinion, it should. But if it can't and yet it's forced to have an army, than conscription is the only way to go.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 07:37 PM |
|
|
|
When women are obligated to serve, what happens if they get pregnant during their service? Are they automatically put on leave and continue to serve afterwards till their time is up?
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 07:43 PM |
|
|
These are girls aged 18-20 we're talking about, so generally it doesn't happen. If it does, they get a leave and if I'm not mistaken get released from the army. Unless they want to continue their service and are signed for more, in which case they get their leave and then return to service. Exactly like in any civilian organization.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 10:23 PM |
|
|
Geny said:
An army is made of much much more than a group of soldiers with guns. You need all sorts of people for a fully functioning army, ranging from cooks to doctors and engineers. So you would have to give them a heck of an incentive to join the army in the first place and doing so on a government budget is not as easy as it might sound.
Why not raise taxes and/or cut the budget in other areas instead?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 10:33 PM |
|
|
|
People, conscription and a professional army are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 10:44 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:48, 06 Aug 2014.
|
|
Of course not, but people who are against conscription suggest a professional army as an alternative, since you have to have an alternative unless you believe a world without military force is possible at this point. So, the argument is "a professional army is sufficient ENOUGH." Is it really, can be discussed but the determining details may vary from country to country.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 10:53 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 22:58, 06 Aug 2014.
|
This is entirely country dependent. All countries must have some sort of defence, so they should choose the one that fits their needs.
A professional army is too expensive and specialized for those that can't afford it. In my opinion USA can't afford the army they have right now, but that is their call. There is no dire threat to their existence, all of it is just for offensive power. That is another topic though.
I do think that forcing people to fight in military is not ideal, but some small countries don't have other options. Either they have a large enough army of their own to deter enemy, or they "buy" someone to do it for them,
Granted the nowadays seem very war-free for countries in the west, but that is the thing, you never know. Things like EU help mitigate the threat of war massively. As much as there are problems with the EU it does help stabilize the region massively.
I must be rambling by now, but my main point indeed is that what kind of army is needed is dependent on the country, there is no proper universal solution.
Edit. My country has it (Finland). And I support it because the alternative is too bad. Even if Russia never attacked us, they could bully us way too much if they knew we had NO defence. Against a major power like that, the only way to win is by guerilla warfare. We have a large country so it would be extremely hard for an opponent to occupy it. Look at Vietnam-USA to see how it turns out.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 11:17 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Of course not, but people who are against conscription suggest a professional army as an alternative, since you have to have an alternative unless you believe a world without military force is possible at this point. So, the argument is "a professional army is sufficient ENOUGH." Is it really, can be discussed but the determining details may vary from country to country.
No, that's the wrong viewpoint. Whether you have consription or not, today, there is a basic professional army at the core of it, the career soldiers. Conscription is just the effort, officially or publicly done to raise the spectre of being able to mobilize the whole population, should push come to shove.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 11:28 PM |
|
|
I'd like someone to convince me that taxes and conscription are significantly different.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 11:38 PM |
|
|
|
As a wealthy man you certainly understand why you would rather pay money than sign up for a possible death warrant, don't you????
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 11:53 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:54, 06 Aug 2014.
|
I don't see how that contradicts with what I said, JJ.
If push come to shove can be considered a realistic or a "paranoid" argument depending on the country. For example, where as Israel or Iran may expect an attempt at not just invasion but conquest at any time, given the brotherly love they are surrounded by, someone from Finland may very well say to Minion, "the Russians attacking us, get real, man!" Now consider countries who are even more fortunate, if you live in Denmark or France today, what kind of invasion would you be expecting, unless there is some kind of zombie apocalypse?
So people will be much more comfortable taking conscription out of the equation even as a precaution. Keep in mind, to bring it back is always possible if the conjuncture changes drastically. But that does not happen in days, it happens in decades.
Of course, we are completely putting aside the part about violation of individual rights, at the moment but that is all related to the probability of "the push coming down to shove."
So,
@Corb
It all depends on how necessary conscription actually is. Taxing can not be avoided in an urban civilization, there is quite a consensus on that. Not so, when it comes to conscription.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 11:57 PM |
|
|
Let's look at it from first principles: the Hobbesian social contract.
Roughly speaking, a government's action is justified if and only if those who live in its jurisdiction find it more in their self-interest to have the government perform that action than to have it not perform it. I think there's a relatively uncontroversial case for some kind of national defense on these grounds, so I won't justify it unless someone asks. However, whatever kind of national defense it is, it's only justified if it's constituted such that those in the government's jurisdiction would find it in their interests to agree to it as opposed to a less demanding alternative. Would people find it in their interests to have their lives disrupted and suffer significant discomfort by being forced to serve in the military, when the alternative is to pay somewhat higher taxes for exclusively professional defense?
It helps to think about it like this: Suppose a guy holds a gun to your head and gives you a choice - you can either be kidnapped and be forced to pick cotton for him until you pick $100 of cotton, or you can give the guy $110. Which would you rather choose? Given the option, most people would choose the latter. So it is with conscription - taxes/fees can be expensive, but they're still better than forced labor.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 12:05 AM |
|
|
But that's not how it goes Mvass. Do you have any idea how large a military a country the size of Finland, for example, would need to defend itself effectively? 150000-300000. I want to see you pay for those 150000 from the taxes of a country with 5.4 million inhabitants.
Or you can do like Sweden and snow the whole defending your country thing. They've got enough soldiers to barely defend Stockholm. Just lol.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 12:05 AM |
|
|
|
Except, in certain countries a professional army may not sufficiently compensate a large infantry that drafts people unless the expenses go beyond affordable. The technological equipment the country can produce/buy/is allowed to buy also matters.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 12:23 AM |
|
|
Joonas:
You have four options: conscription, taxes and a professional military, a nuclear arsenal, or giving up on national defense. Conscription disrupts people's lives and forces them to do things they don't want, and national defense with a large territory and a small tax base can get expensive. Consider nukes. And if for some reason you reject that option, it may be that defense is just too burdensome and you're better off pursuing something more limited.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 01:09 AM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
Or you can do like Sweden and snow the whole defending your country thing. They've got enough soldiers to barely defend Stockholm. Just lol.
xerox, i'm coming to take over your country. single-handed. prepare your bladder for imminent release. and prepare to be my personal coat rack. i hope you like standing for long periods of time. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 09:43 AM |
|
|
artu said:
I don't see how that contradicts with what I said, JJ.
If push come to shove can be considered a realistic or a "paranoid" argument depending on the country. For example, where as Israel or Iran may expect an attempt at not just invasion but conquest at any time, given the brotherly love they are surrounded by, someone from Finland may very well say to Minion, "the Russians attacking us, get real, man!" Now consider countries who are even more fortunate, if you live in Denmark or France today, what kind of invasion would you be expecting, unless there is some kind of zombie apocalypse?
So people will be much more comfortable taking conscription out of the equation even as a precaution. Keep in mind, to bring it back is always possible if the conjuncture changes drastically. But that does not happen in days, it happens in decades.
Of course, we are completely putting aside the part about violation of individual rights, at the moment but that is all related to the probability of "the push coming down to shove."
So,
@Corb
It all depends on how necessary conscription actually is. Taxing can not be avoided in an urban civilization, there is quite a consensus on that. Not so, when it comes to conscription.
Well, yes, I was answering to the general gist of "we don't need conscription, a professional army does the trick".
I wanted to point out, that for conscription even to work you already need a professional army, a core of trainers, weapons, a working structure.
Which is also the reason why there will always be military - if you really need one the structures must already be there, otherwise it's too late anyway.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 08:53 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Joonas:
You have four options: conscription, taxes and a professional military, a nuclear arsenal, or giving up on national defense.
I think you should make this five options by splitting conscription into active and passive conscription.
Active conscription: the thing that is discussed here as conscription. You have to serve in the army for a period of time.
Passive conscription: in times of emergency (an invasion, WW3) you will be called upon to fight for your country.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 09:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Passive conscription: in times of emergency (an invasion, WW3) you will be called upon to fight for your country.
You mean reserves? You can't mass conscript citizens in an emergency, such a large project needs a great deal of planning and control over your nation's resources in order to divert it to feeding and equipping your new conscripts, not to mention housing and training them, plus the time consumption doing so. Also allocating enough army personnel to train them, just cause yer a soldier don't make you qualified to train soldiers, so qualified individuals are needed to fulfill this role and fast.
I think that taxes ought to be removed, but along with it any privileges that might come from being a citizen. (exceptions include free schools, since schools are "investing in the future") Funny, my father works here in England, though he ain't a citizen, still pays all his taxes, but gets none of the benefits of being a British citizen.
As for conscription. I know for a fact that not every person is cut out to be a soldier, and in the modern age where quality heavily outmatches numbers (though this seems to be a prevalent fact across most of our history) it is important to retain quality soldiers. So those that exhibit the qualities of soldiers are the only ones that should ever be considered for conscription, and be forced/implored into military training, and placed in the reserves used only at a time of national emergency.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
