POLL: Conscription or Pro's?

Remove all ads!

Well, for me. No question, a professional army would be better. It is way, way cheaper. The soldiers would be longer there and get more training, therefore be able to do their job better. As for better because of being alturistic "volunteers",I don't think so. Going to professional army is a career choce. A job oppurtinity you take, you get pay for it and learn skills. And of course, a stoic attitude which goes with it, whatever you do, it belongs to the job.

Conscription armies are way more expensive, the training and military time is way shorter, so the "soldier" skills aren't that good. And of course, the "citizen soldier" will want to have a good reason and exlpanation, when he gets a letter he'll be going to Gambia for a year in two weeks. But "morale" isn't a big issue, as most conscripted armies have only a defensive purpose, so you can think, that when it's about the sake of your home country, you're as motiviated as motivation can go.

But as a matter of fact, a professional army is a luxury only populous countries can afford. For most others, it boils down to have an expesnive conscript army are no army at all. Army or no army, that's the question.

Incidentally, we don't trust no army. And mostly not our own. That's why generals are forbidden in peacetime and we take our rifles home. Like giving the military and the federal goverment rifles, what a weird idea.

 

I can't help but to nitpick a little. The hey-day of conscripted armies was the last century, notably WW1. They became all-important in the 19th century. Before that, it was professional soldiers and mercenaries as there was no "state" that could call people to duty like it would exist afterwards. Or one might say, major wars in relation to the size of the country can cause conscription. Notably the Germans where very succesfull with their mix out of professionals and conscripts, as they could take the conscripts from a generally highly skilled population which didn't need much time to adapt to moderm weaponry.

 

Well, here in Finland the conscription is kind of a part of the culture it has allways been here and I suppose it will allways be, all males here have to go to the military for at least six months or have a doctor's proof of incapability to serve. There is also the choise of civilian service where one instead of working in the army works as a helper in hospitals, libraries, schools etc, this choice though is considered by many as a shame and it lasts much longer than standard military service.

So yes I'm all for conscription though some are against it but here in Finland it has always been like this and it greatly helped us during WW2 and I doubt we could have continued to exist as a nation back then without conscription.

Today of course we have no immidiate threats and the army ain't even close to as effective as it was back then, but as said earlier it's a part of the culture and not many of the current politicians would even consider changing our army to a pro one.

 

Laches, my fear of the power of the military is mostly a fear of the possibility of the armed branch deciding it dont like what the politicians are doing. With a professional army they have a much easier to time to just tell the politicians to go fword themselves. I am actually basing my argument somewhat on the US, as far as I can tell the military has a lot more power in the US than in the democratic conscription countries I am familiar with. The armed forces have a very strong lobby organisation and influences certain decisions made in the white house and senate.

For the crazy loon thing I have no support to offer you, no studies that I know of. One reason I have this opinion is that I have view of the military that many dont seem to share, for me the military is there to kill people, period. No matter the reason and whatever you do when in the military the ultimate goal is to kill other people. I cant help but view anyone who volunteers to spend their life preparing to kill people or actually killing people to be a bit odd. So in my opinion anyone who volunteers for the military, especially in a country in a time when there isnt 500 000 soldiers of the evil emperor on your doorstep, are either blind and stupid (cause they dont realise that the sole aim of them being in the military is to kill people, they just wanted a free education or to help people or it just seemed like a cool thing to do) or they really want to kill people. Either way they dont seem like people you would want to give a machine gun to. Heck, I go into the first category, when I was in the conscription office I could have easily wriggled out of the service but I wanted to join. I thougth it would build character and be a cool thing to do. It may do those things but after a while in the service I came to understand that the fundamental purpose of the military and thus a soldiers, any soldiers, even if you turn papers in an office, is to kill people or enable other soldiers to people easier or more efficiently.

 

I'll have to disagree with you here, it is the same as saying that the police forces exist only to arrest people, the military at least here has several other functions than to kill people, for example in an national crisis (let's say that one of our nuclear reactors blows up) the military will be there to keep the peace and to organize possible evacuations etc so the military is just an extended police force which is used in a crisis situation. The international use of the military is then a different issue...

I would also like to clarify my view on this question as my last post may have left it unclear.
I think it is everyone's duty to take part in the defence of their homeland but if a nation has a lot of its military forces abroad then I think that some kind of a proffessional military is essential.

 

See, I think you're view of why people join the military, at least in the US, is off skew. At least, my anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. It may be because you are used to an entirely different set of social systems. Here are the people I know who went into the military and why:

"Bear" went to West Point because he wanted to be a medical doctor and his family didn't have much money. He is a medical doctor.

Pat was one of those guys with a great heart who studied his ass off in highschool for a 'C' grade. He joined the Navy because, well, his family didn't have too much and college wasn't probably for him. He wanted a trade. He is now a civilian who works for an elevator repair company - he got the trade he wanted and now has a good job.

Trish, my fiancee, joined the Army because she wanted to be the first person in her family to go to college. Having grown up homeless, her family needless to say didn't have the funds to help her with college. They Army did. She is now not only the first high school grad in her family, and not only the first college grad, she is now on her way to law school. The Army gave her these opportunities.

The stories I hear is that the people they knew joined for similar reasons. I think most people don't join the armed forces with the idea they'll engage in combat (which is, admittedly, naive) - I think they join for other reasons. Now, certainly some people join for other reasons - and I don't know that there is something necessarily wrong with that - depending on the exact reason (see the NFL football safety who joined the Rangers). I suspect these folks are the minority though in the US military.

As for the fear of the US military power - the most powerful person in the armed forces is currently Rumsfeld. These folks change periodically with the President.

[ January 24, 2004, 19:27: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I agree with Laches in this one. The majority of the professionals, that I met during my service, joined the army because they couldn't find another job or because it was their family tradition and some of them believed that it was the biggest mistake of their life. The people, who didn't joined for the above reasons, joined the army because of the authority that army gave them and not because they like to kill people. For a 19 year old corporal, totally unquilified for any other decent job, army is the only place where he could have some authority, where he could be respected and this is the kind of the professional military man that I despise because they joined the army in order to satisfy their inferiority complex.

 

Well, the people you have listed here are the "blind fools", I was one of them. There can be many many reasons for joining the military, especially in the US, and many of them are very worthy and understandable. It doesnt change the bottomline though, whatever their reasons for joining may be, they are there to kill people.

Morgoroth, what you list are secondary uses for the armed forces. It is not their main purpose, the main purpose is to kill people. The reasons for killing people may vary and at times it may even be a worthwhile and nescessary killing but killing it is.

 

In fact, that point in emphasized in Basic Training. ("What makes the grass grow?" - the answer is blood.)

 

I still disagree, the main purpose of the army at least here is to protect the people and yes sometimes that involves killing but it still ain't their main purpose. The Finnish army is mainly maintained to handle crisis situations not to wage war or to kill anyone.

The little troops we have abroad (mainly in Kosovo and some even in Afganistan) are there to keep peace in the name of UN they are there to prevent the population from killing each other, they are not there to kill.

 

While as a potential target, I dislike the very idea of conscription, as a political leader or military commander, I would have different considerations. However, let's maybe just pay taxes and be free from running up and down a hill with a shovel. Training for all volunteers, even if they only just want training, no work.

 

Morgoroth, the things you talk about could just as easily be handled by a civilian agency, they use the military cause it is already there. Of course almost all countries maintain armed forces for defensive purposes, but what do you think that defence is all about? To kill the buggers trying to kill you and the people you love.

How are the peacekeeping troops supposed to keep the peace? By asking nicely? They are there to kill anyone breaking the peace if all other options have run out. It may not be their first choice but it is the reason they are there and why they carry around those big weapons.

 

Having bad troops doesn't make a country think twice about military activities in other countries, it just makes the country screw up even more. The plans of warfare takes place in our governments, and that is a war on principles. Principles don't care if the army is a bunch of rubble.

A bad army also prevents it from *Effectively* aid in global crisis. Makes the country more vulnerable and generally adds to the tension. Tension is the last thing we want connected to warfare.

Conscriptioned troops are bad troops. I've been there. We couldn't even defend our own country. Neither mentally or physically ready. Most of us hated the draft. A system cannot work on hate. Especially not one as important and aroused as an army in war.

[ January 28, 2004, 15:11: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Nobleman, what you described is exactly one reason why conscription hinders a government from getting adventourous. If you have troubly motivating your troops to defend their own country in a case of invasion how do you convince them to go somewhere else and fight?

And I am of the opinion that the one thing which conscriptees really would fight for is their homes. Probably better than professionals as they see themselves more as a part of the civilians than professionals who have lived and worked apart from the civilian population for a few years.

 

If the purpose of having a military is to stay peacefull... then a spontaneous civilian movement of resistance would do just as well if we got invaded by professional troops and had to defend our homeland.

But I still think wars are decided and issued by politicians and their principles and principles do not take good or bad troops into consideration.