POLL: Conscription

Remove all ads!

This I can agree with, being exempt from conscription for religious reasons is not valid. The law is above the religion in this case. It's not like I can build a religion that believes taxing to be wrong and therefore be exempt from taxing.

Military service is obviously the preferation. Civil service is just a compromise option during peace-time. The laws of Finland are such that ethical reasons do not stand when war actually breaks out and draft is initiated. So basically those who take civil-service in peace time would have to be trained during war time which is more expensive and strains the war effort, so obviously the military service is preferable.

Also the notion that civil-service is twice as long is complete crap in my opinion. Some get away with six months, others with nine and about a third of all conscripts must be the full twelve month period against their will, including a whole bunch of my friends. If the civil-service was actually cut to six months then it would not be equal (which I don't support anyway) but a preferable option.

Also in civil-service you are typically free after max eight hours of work leaving the rest of the day to you. In army the usual free time is three hours which is more often than not cut into two or even one hours. Not to mention that at camps it's basically a full 24/7 service with only a few hours of sleep.

The only cut I would agree to the civil-service it's taking the one extra month away and making it last twelve months. Other than that you are showing preference to the option that is in no rasonable way preferable.

[ December 16, 2006, 18:32: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

My service in the military covered both the conscript and the voluntary army. Ragusa is totally right about the difference between the two. With the creation of the all volunteer army crime and drug abuse went to an all time high. No pun intended.
That said I am still against conscription except in real emergency. I am totally against drafting women except in skilled non-combat roles. Someone has to stay behind and keep things going and it is hard to find young females who can run miles with a heavy load. I can't remember where it was I read it but only the top 7% of women in the military could match the bottom 7% of the men. I know it was a US gov report but I read it years ago.

SimDing0- Ever live in an occupied country? I haven't and don't think I could without fighting my A** off.

 

Lol, what makes a man better at firing a gun than a woman?

 

@Barmy Army
Nothing to do with shooting, has to do with equiptment loads and who is left home during the fighting. Did you ever see a small woman try to carry the 85-90 lb toolbox to a chopper at a run? Someone has to carry gear just to be in a position to shoot and men are as a rule stronger.
On a personal note I don't think I could keep my mind on what I was doing if I was trying to watch out for a young woman on the front line. This is my personal failing but I wonder how many other men share it. Don't flame me please, not sexist just human nature!

 

I'm not flaming, it's just that I know a few women who would eat your ears off for saying you can do something that they can't!

With the proper training and discipline, I think either sex can achieve pretty much the same. Just look at sports, women aren't a million years men these days.

 

Barmy Army, didn't mean you, I was afraid the women would "eat my ears off"!
I don't think you can even use sports as an example. How about having the girls play a mens pro football team? I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I am all for equal rights however as Montresor said "men are on average much stronger than women". This in a fight is most often what maters.

 

Yes, pulling the trigger takes a lot of strenght. Think it this way: women tend to be more social, so they would be more ferocious to defend their pals. According of some study, soldiers actually shoot to defend their team-mates, so women would be more apt in the job. Kill easier, shed a few more tears later, and then "But I got over it, sister!"

Yes, another thing that needs to be changed. Many flaws in the finnish law in this matter. I remember quite vividly how one of the so-called soldiers commented about civil-servants: "Cannonfodder and good riddance!" Reflects the attitudes some people have, perhaps because of their military training...

Head that before. They are two different things and you cannot make a comparison based solely on working hours. Perhaps the conscripts should do 8 hour days for twice as long, eh? That would be another way to even it out.

06.00-21.00 regular days. Lights off at 21.00. Morning duties at 06.00 and call to line at 06.15, IIRC. Life of a dog, if you ask me, and still the patriots think that it is a great priviledge no one has the right to opt out of.

Perhaps not the patriots, who can think only their own mouth. Also, when and if everyone is made equally draft'able, several women and religious worshippers must have another option. The alternative is throwing these people into jail as dissidents, like Finland is doing now. Or, in war time, simply placing them before the firing squad.

Every year 50 people are jailed because of this and more are afraid to voice their opinions as a result. United Nations, European Union, and Amnesty International have critisized the practise, but the prime-minister responded by throwing the suggestions into a trash-bin. If you thought that US is the only one breaking human rights, you can add Finland to the list (Source, check the links).

[ December 16, 2006, 23:51: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

 

I'll bet Bush is setting up for a draft, and personally, I don't want to be drafted. But because I live in Massachusetts, if we got invaded by anyone except Russia or South America, Mass would be first, and I think I would take up arms if it is worth it. If we did something stupid to provoke invasion, then I'd rather be alive and invaded than (as SimDing0 said) patriotic and dead. If someone came and tried to enslave us all for being American, I would fight against them (preferably guerilla style, like in Red Dawn , but I guess the US Army is better than being dead...).

Thats bull****. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't have a moral antipathy towards fighting. I hate fighting, but because I'm an atheist its alright for me to go and die for the country?

 

While cannon fodder is taking it too far, no one is actually going to care about your personal ethical determination at the time of great crisis. Cannon Fodder is a huge overstatement but in crisis everyone is to do their part. While some militarists certainly would like to go the "cannon fodder" way with civil-servants that won't happen. A part of the Finnish success in the winter war was due to high morality, treating troops badly is demoralizing and not good for the war effort. On the other hand if possible civil servants should be assigned to logistics, perhaps as drivers, medics or other weapon free duties, but if required they should be under the same obligation as anyone else.

You keep forgetting that nearly a third of all conscript allready do that for twice as long. Six months for civil-service is unreasonable for those doing the military service and won't happen. Nine months I can grudgingly accept but in my opinion twelve months for civil-service is the way to go.

Not to mention that those who have gone

Great to see you quote a neutral source.

In any case Amnesty International lost the respect of most Finns by doing that stunt and its comments are not taken seriously by most of the population. The European Union has not condemned the Finnish conscription laws, if they had this thing would be in EU courts which it is not. It is funny though how human rights are violated every time you have to do something you don't like. I bet they'll quote on human rights soon when they have to pay taxes.

We are talking about conscription as a way to organize the national defence. The main priority in defence is the manpower so obviously military service is preferable. I'd like to see you prove otherwise. Civil-service is an artificial alternative built for those who for a reason or the other have problems with the army. This is in my opinion good since someone who opposes weaponry or has other ethical dilemmas with the institution has an alternative instead of going to jail. It is a way to compensate the military service, it has never been prioritized and never will be. The military is the primary option and civil-service comes only secondary. People should be encouraged to pick the primary option and a shorter duration certainly is the way.

As a sidenote. I'm not a huge patriot (though I do like this country in many ways) but I'm a realist. If civil-service was six months then it is very possible that I would have very likely chosen it as an option. After all why really bother with the enormous changes to life you have to cope with in the army, when you can just go on a bit like you used to? It is quite a treshold stepping into the military and if people start finding civil-service more attractive our manpower will decrease and holding a conscript army will become difficult if not impossible forcing us to seek other options, options which in my opinion would be worse than the current.

EDIT:

This is special right reserved for Jehova's Witnesses only. They are a very small minority who protested for years against the system and went to jail because of it, so in the end they were made exempt from conscription for far reaching cultural reasons. I certainly do not agree with this decision, their values and morals are not higher than anyone elses who decides to protest against the current system. Other religious groups are conscriptable.

 

Harbourboy is right. Conscription is a silly idea. I remember talking to a few kiwi's who were in the Veitnam war and the number of complaints they had about how useless conscripted American soldiers were...

In a small country like New Zealand, conscription would serve no use at all, military wise. If, for some unbeknown reason, we were to get invaded, even having half our population serving in the army simply would not make a difference. Not only do we lack the people, but also the economy to be able to afford enough technology capable of defending ourselves.

In todays world though, is there really a point of conscription? Technology and money is the winner of wars - much more so than man power.

Wordplay, this is not true in the slightest. Once again, take New Zealand as an example. Our army, small as it is, is more often than not entirely deployed over seas, working in peacekeeping roles. Our airforce consists of a few training planes and one or two helecopters and the navy is made of entirely of patrol boats.

Yet only once has there ever been a threat of invasion - by Japan in WW2. And even then none of our troops were pulled back from Europe. I'm not exaggerating when I say all we had to defend ourselves with were tractors with corrigated iron covering them and old WW1 air guns pulled from museams. There simply was no point - if the Japanesse got to New Zealand, even with our entire Army here, we wouldn't stand a chance.

I'm with Saber here. Better occupied and alive than patriotic and dead. There are better ways to fight than conscription. And like Saber said, if the country was threatened, you can bet the number of recruits would shoot up.


As for the best way I feel to set up our defences, for a country of New Zealand's size and landscape (not that we really need defences) the best way by far would be a small elite army, trained in guerilla warfare - as to be honest, that's the only way New Zealand would ever stand a chance at defending itself.

 

Well yes I suppose we could scrap conscription and go nuclear. It's not like building a nuke would be a serious problem to any country with nuclear energy.

The main point with conscription is working as a deterrent. Practically the only threat to Finland will be Russia, it's not an active threat now but you can never tell what it will look like ten or twenty years from now. Practically our chances of surviving an attack of Russia is zero so conscription mainly functions as a way to arm the people and fuel the insurgency, making invasion too expensive to be a reasonable option.

If we would have chosen this path in WWII a major part would have probably ended up genocided or deported and our death count would be significantly higher from that war than it is now.
Also recruits who can't handle the gun and other equipment are useless. You can't just train the entire population a few months before the war, they must have some basics in the background.

 

I am strongly opposed to conscription - the idea of fighting and possibly dying for something that at best I'm basically apathetic towards and at worst am totally opposed to really, deeply doesn't interest me.

I don't care how much sense it makes from a national defense viewpoint - I want no part in it.

 

I remember that I was always somewhat annoyed when comrades expressed a sense of futility about war. "When it gets hot they'll press a button and the show's over!". Wrong attitude.

Traditional Infantry, soldiers, have a role in war. I would suggest to look to Iraq and Afghanistan, where a low tech resistance successfully binds and slows down an enemy who's technologically vastly superior and has superior training.

 

Perhaps. I just have recently studied the history and it has made me doubt the idea of being completely defenceless. Granted, it has clear benefits, since maintaining military costs a whole lot of money. This money could be used so much better during the time of peace, when military has nothing better to do than buy new toys.

But! It takes just one crazy politician in a wrong position to cause a war, Bush being a prime example of this. Should the same happen in Russia, Finland would have some serious problems to deal with. Perhaps EU would help, but in the end it would come down to pitting finnish military against the invaders. Failure to do so would mean the massacre of finnish population and civilizations.

IMO, EU should have a military of its own so that each country could share the costs of military and, perhaps, Finland could then get rid of conscription.

Exactly, but my point was that the attitudes towards making civil-service an equal choise are very harsh and oppressive. One of the main reasons why I chose civil-service instead of just completing my pioneer-training. The other reasons were work-experience and personal liberty. We can't go on thinking that "the war is right behind the corner."

Yeah, in Finland's current situation. I was saying that the situation has to change so that everyone should have the option between equally long military-service and civil-service.

First time you bring this up. No, I haven't forgotten it. Just like there is a discriminated option between civil- and military-service, there are options of how you want to do your military-service. Do you want to be a driver? OK, you have to stay for twice as long. Leader? Twice as long. So if people want to stay longer to become a leader, fine. It just isn't part of the default setup.

What you are saying is simply that ~30% chooses a non-default career-path during the mandatory service period. This leaves ~70% who just want to get out ASAP. The military also has a habit of trying to assign people to longer training-programs if they do not strongly reject the idea. You know: name to the paper, say that you are going here, and if there is no absolute refusal, there is no problem either.

Notice the words "Check the links." For some reason the board gave me an error when I tried to give a direct link to the material presented by EU, UN, and Amnesty. The reliability of EU and UN is undisputed.

No, they both have to be equal choises. Don't think only of your own mouth. Military is not and should not be the only way to go.

I know what you mean, but during war you would have only bad choises: 1) you leave the country ASAP, 2) you risk the enemy bullets in army, or 3) you get shot by the military police or the invading soldiers, whichever gets you first. Not that #1 is that bad, depending of your point of view, but it's sure as hell that your own will be as eager to put you down as the enemy when they learn of your intentions.

 

I must agree with wordplay, i cant see why military service should be better then civil service or why people choosing civil service should be forced to work longer then people who take military service.

for the vast majority of conscripts, the time spend there, is something they just have to be done with, so they can continue thier normal life.

For me it was an annoying vaste of time, where my monthly income dropped by 2000kr (roughly 200£) each month after taxes. very annoying.

in Denmark the rules are close to the Finnish, we have a core of profesionels, which are the only soldiers who can be send abroad and we have the conscripts.

the military service only last 4months, to get your the basic training, to be considered a soldier, you then have to sign for another 6month training and 6months abroad/standby

the civil service, now also only last 4months.

the only reason not to join any of this are medical reasons. Religius people, that wont serve neither go to jail.

now seeing the current reforms here in Denmark, i think we are only a couple of steps from a complete voulentery military. when i was in the military, there was so many voulentiers, that they lacked training supplies for all, that clearly showed that our military could be formed solely of people who wanted too.

regarding women, i think its rediculus that we claim to have equal rights, when womn are not conscripted and when they voulentire they get a contract they can cancel with two weeks notice, while males either gets conscripted or voulentire, but even when voulentired are forced to serve the 4months.

 

I agree with Rotku. Conscription would be pointless in New Zealand. I'd be a hopeless army person, unless you made me the military librarian or chef or something.

 

It is not a choice. Probably half become leaders out of free will (if even so many), with drivers it's a bit more common since there are often enough of voulenteers. Point being that it is not a choice, other people decide this for you and they don't allways respect your wishes. I had several friends in the army who were forced for twelve months.

I really do not think that civil-service should be equal since it exists only to compensate the military part. Sure you should not be branded as b-class citizen and should allowed the same possibilities in life but the service itself needs to be longer, if for no other reason then because the military part requires a lot more work, adjustment and stress. When you cut civil service to six months you not only are guaranteed the shortest possible time of service but additionally you get a lot easier work without making serious adjustments to your life. This is encouraging to taking the civil-service and that's not sensible defence policy. However I think we'll have to just agree to disagree with this one.

Quite frankly I don't consider these choices to have anything to do with Amnesty and UN. With EU it has and EU is free to challenge it in its own court of human rights which have not condemned the Finnish form of conscription, and don't show any signs of challenging it anytime soon.

However I do think that the Finnish conscription system is condemned to fail, not because anyone from the outside forces it but because the temptation of scrapping the system becomes too great when the generations that actually saw war on Finnish soil die away and new ones forget the importance of defence. A decicion later generations will regret.

 

I always felt that the use of conscription and drafting were to be used in only the most dire of situations. Petty wars such as the "War on Terror," and other such conflicts, where the country in question [US] is hardly in a desperate struggle for survival, should never constitute a draft in my opinion. In wars such as WWI and II however, where the very existence of my country would be at stake, I would have absolutely no issue with conscription/drafting, even if it was me that was being called to fight.

 

This is precisely the attitude that has led to so many problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would lead to just as many problems in a conventional war.

American infantry have the Dragon missile, which can reliably KO any AFV in the world. China (and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc) have the Kornet, which is nearly as good.

Choppers are extraordinarily vulnerable to ground fire, small arms and machineguns alike (this was confirmed in OIF when an entire effing battalion of Apaches was rendered combat ineffective for weeks by machinegun and assault rifle fire; that's the reason doctrine now has choppers avoiding urban areas in Iraq).

Now, infantry don't do so well vs. fixed-wing aircraft or artillery, but there're plenty of MPAD systems available, plenty of mobie AA and SAMs, and likewise plenty of counterbattery radar systems.

In modern wars, weapons have up to a 50% kill chance--not hit, kill. This is why tank battles in Desert Storm were so quick in comparison to the length of time they lasted in WWII.

This is not to suggest that choppers, AFVs, artillery, or aircraft are irrelevant to war. They're important, even vital. But they don't (with, perhaps, the exception of artillery) overshadow the infantryman.