POLL: Conscription

Remove all ads!

Maybe not overly healthy, but then nor is been killed in an impossible fight.

 

I think it is a very healthy and sensible attitude.

Option 1: Train for ages for fight that may never happen. If fight happens, will likely get killed.

Option 2: Get on with more productive activities, like making things, feeding people, looking after children, paying taxes. If fight happens, might get killed. Might have to pay taxes to new leader. Might be able to escape to different country.

Option 2 seems much more sensible than option 1.

 

It is a continous process, people do not actually sacrfice their lives for this training but only six months to a year. Now in a lifetime that is not much to pay. However I unfortunaetly see that your kind of thinking will be taking over. War will be forgotten and people will grow all too accustomed to peace to be prepared for war. At that point some petty little dictatorship will be free to do as it pleases and oppress the people to no end. But hey, atleast we can say that we defended peace through peaceful means, whatever that's worth.

 

I think if you're put in a position where it's either 'kill those guys' or 'get killed and never see your family again' you're going to try just as hard as the next guy. I don't see conscription changing that. Kill or be killed is a powerful motivator.

 

Load of BS. first of none of us, has said remove the military, the general trend has been remove the conscripted part, let it rely soully on voulenteers.

thier is no logic reason, to deprive society of able hands in 4months, its completely stupid. either your force them in the military or you force them to do some job they dont want to, you cut thier pay...oh there is another thing thier, you keep ignoring my point about pay or belittle it. do you have any idea how hard is it for a 20year old contracter with a steady job, a pay around the 20.000kr and his first child, to suddenly find himself taken away from it, put in another job or the mili and his monthly income cut to 8.000 with 2.000 extra, to cover part of the rent. not to mention is employer, who suddenly lose a man for 4months with no compensation given.

conscription is waste of time and a waste for society, its a leftover from world war 2.

 

Consider this: If people do not want to fight for something, then it is not worth fighting for.

The government may think that fighting for the country is of utmost importance - but then, they would think that now, wouldn't they? They have a lot invested in their country and are enjoying the power and so such that it brings (or more likely - the people in the government don't believe that it's worth risking their own lives for but are quite happy to have others do so for their benefit).

To the average person maybe the country isn't worth fighting for. Sure - some may believe that it is - they're the ones who sign up for the military voluntarily.

So why should those that don't believe that it's worth fighting for be forced to sign up to prepare to fight for it (and be presumably forced to fight for it if a war broke out) when it's only a very small number of people who hold this belief that their country is worth fighting and dying over?

 

Around here the entire rent is covered by the state. The spouse will get some support but it's also possible postpone stepping into the military if the current situation makes it impossible. For people with loans this is difficult, but then it is suggested to get the military out of the way before considering children or gettin an appartment. There are some to who the military service brings big difficulties because of their life situation but more often than not it's because of their poor planning and even then it's not a problem that can't be overcome.

It's an inheritance from ww2. A country can't survive a large scale conflict without full conscription. Voulenteers won't be enough against a conscripted army. That is why nearly all countries have some sort of laws of full conscription when the crisis comes. Some bigger countries can afford partial conscription or even and entirely private army. For smaller countrys like Finland with a large land area the troop amount gathered from voulenteers just won't be enough under any circumstances.

@Aik

It's not even that much to defend your country but to defend yourself, your family, your possessions and your lifestyle. You don't find those worth fighting for? I'm not that enthusiastic about going to war for the country but I doubt that any neighbouring nation will be accepting a five million refugees anytime soon. Only a very tiny portion will have any chance of escape so unless you are part of that tiny portion of the population the only reasonable option will be to stay and fight or give in to the enemy, and surrender to their mercy and hope that are more humane that occupiers in general tend to be.

 

Conscription for a war scenario should only be as an absolute last resort. I don't see it happening in any of the Wetern countries, Nukes are likely to come earlier.

Military service outside of war: I don't personally agree with it, but can see the perceived benefits of providing some discipline to moronic teenagers that would otherwise be out causing trouble (massive over-generalisation I know). I quite like the sound of the Polish model Chev described recently, where under-acheivers have to do military service.

 

1. Service is not slavery. It is fulfilling a debt.

2. Volunteerism is significantly waning in society -- therefore, service is the next option to promote a better society (as I said there should be many options for service, some I left out in my previous post: teaching in high risk areas, medical work at clinics in low income areas, basically giving people training to help their community and giving them jobs).

3. HB: Much of option 2 sounds too much like cowardice to me. I would oppose it with every breath I take. I believe my home, my family and my country are worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for. But then, I chose to serve in the military (and my feelings are pretty common in that group of peers). I don't understand the philosophy you prescribe to, nor would I ever want to. As a result, you may live longer, but I would not want that kind of life.

HB, you appear to be an example of what I'm really talking about -- not a very strong sense of community belonging. Based on what you've said, you would rather leave when things get bad rather than dig in and make things better. I could be wrong and I would quickly apologize for such a rash assumption -- but I believe the sentiment is fairly common. By getting people involved (or invested) in the community, those people develop ties to others in that community and become more apt to help make the community a better place for everyone. But then, I could be wrong (I often am) and I know there will always be those who will oppose anything that causes them discomfort -- no matter the reward.

By the way, for those who do not seem to understand the logistics.... It takes a minimum of four months to get a marginally trained grunt. Up to two years to get a highly qualified specialist who can really use some of the high tech stuff the military has. It is impractical to wait until time of war to conscript a fighting force -- such a war would be lost before the first conscripts ever received basic training. A wartime philosophy of conscripting for a threat is a self-defeating philosophy, not realistic, and very short sighted.

 

Why is a "country" worth fighting for? I think I agree with what Aikanaro said. And I think that it is a bit brash to go around suggesting that people who work hard for their families are being somewhat lazy and cowardly, just because that don't want to tramp around in camouflage and shoot people. I work damn hard for my family so don't try and tell me that I am somehow letting them down by not being a militaristic soldier.

 

I did not limit community service to military service. And I have not said you are letting your family down. However, those who are not involved in helping their community (city, providence/state, national) ARE letting down those around them -- and it may very well affect their family.

 

Considering how the New Zealand military is a joke when comparing it to the sheer size and scale of the militaries of other countries and the fact that New Zealand is a small island in the south pacific with very little strategic value - unless you're planning on invading Australia - conscription simply wouldn't work or be worth the effort.

I dare say if New Zealand was attacked then the entire might of all English speaking nations and then some would rally to our aid. We simply don't have any enemies so I guess the point of conscription is moot since I doubt it'll ever happen.

However on that note the only time I can see conscription being justified is when the country is under direct threat. I would also probably sign up to avoid the draft if it came to that. Last thing I want is to be in a company of draftees when I could be surrounded by professional soldiers who actually know what they're doing.

 

OK, I'm a little late to this thread, but what in the world is a "private army"? You mean hiring out foreign mercenaries? Do you mean a professional army? Of course, that wouldn't make sense either because you can have a professional army consisting of volunteers or conscripts, and you have consripts and volunteers listed as seperate options. I guess I need more info on what a private army is before I can vote.

 

Private army would be a compeltely proffessional army. Voulenteer army would be an option where military training would be available for all those who want but not forced on anyone. The voulenteers would not be doing this for their living (unless they partake in peacekeeping missions or some such but that's a bit different). The current US system would fall under a private army and a large conscripted reserve, since there are laws for forced draft.

EDTI: Professional army would have been a better and more clear option, but hopefully this clears the confusion.

 

Why do you have to volunteer for service to be of value? Is a paid fireman any worse at putting out fires than a volunteer one? Surely the paid fireman should get respect for the work he does putting out fires and not have to then do some extra volunteer work on the side to be considered a valuable member of the community.

 

Morgoroth,

The U.S. system is currently an all volunteer army, but it is also a professional army, as they are full-time soldiers. It is true that the U.S. has a reserve system as well - they have jobs other than being a soldier - to be called up at times of war, but the reserve is also an all-volunteer force. (You sign up voluntarily, for a given period - I think it's 4 years - but you don't volunteer for particular missions. For example if three years ago you signed up as a reserve, you can't unvolunteer to go fight in Iraq.)

There hasn't been a need for a draft in the U.S. for over 30 years at this point. The last time we had conscripted soldiers was during the Vietnam war. I believe the last year of the draft in the U.S. was 1974.

 

Sorry Morgoroth, but you have the US Military wrong. The US Military is divided in several groups -- ALL of which are volunteers. The US Military is an all volunteer force with NO conscripts serving at this time.

The different groups (not branches of service) are:

Active Duty -- these are the full time professionals.
Ready Reserve -- this is a combination of two groups. The Selected Reserve are the drilling reservists, they maintain the highest level of training for all reservists. Most Selected Reservists receive monthly pay at a fraction of their Active Duty counterparts. The Individual Ready Reserves are those former Active Duty and Selected Reservists who do not train regularly, they only receive pay while actively training. All reserve recalls have come from the Ready Reserve over the past 30 years.
Standby Reserve -- this is pretty much all US males. The US Military has not tapped this source since the Viet Nam War.
Retired Reserves -- these are individuals who have served time required to earn a retirement, but are not age 60 yet. They can be recalled just as the Ready Reserve can.

In all cases, the Ready Reserve and Retired Reserve are under contract which the individuals voluntarily signed. Many individuals go into the reserves thinking they will not be recalled. They sign the contract, take the pay, receive the training, and then do not want to fulfill their end of the contract -- they are not conscripted, those individuals are just being force to honor their contract (which they agreed to voluntarily a long time ago).

The National Guard falls into the Ready Reserve for the most part.

Aldeth beat me to the punch....

HB: Perhaps I'm not being clear. But then again, this is just a pipe dream that will never fly, but any number of occupations would count AS IS (such as fireman, forest ranger and police officer). Pretty much ANY civil servant job should count towards any conscription requirements -- they are all necessary jobs that help build the community at large.

I would envision a well run conscription organization as more a training center. It would give training to those who would not normally receive such opportunities and place those with training in positions where their professional skills could be used. For those who wish 'part time' work could have a regular job while helping on weekends for a period of time. In this example, everyone is required to do some service, but the individual would choose from a large list rather than just Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

[ December 19, 2006, 20:03: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Ah ok seems like I had bit of inaccurate picture about the US military. Thanks for clearing it up.

EDIT: One question though. Are there other than active duty troops involved in Iraq?

EDIT2: Oh never mind, I pretty much got the picture when reading the later part of T2Brunos post more accurately.

 

Actually, the government does NOT pay the rent. The civil-service place is responsible of your housing. But you have to pay it yourself if you refuse to take the hole they assign to you. And all do not even bother to pretend like they would want to offer you an apartment. Result: you have to pay the rent yourself, while working for no salary. So, in the worst case scenario, you either have to take out a hefty loan and/or a second job to be able to participate to civil-service.

The daily support, or the money intended for your living expenses, is 9 euros if the employer does not offer warm meals. But if he does, it is mere 2 euros per day. That's about the same what the people in Africa earn.

Ironically, this is potentially still better what we students get. We have to live with approx. 4 euros per day until we graduate. Just hope that the employer takes into liking me, or else...

 

So, therefore, my tax dollars are going to pay for all these conscripted people being forced to become soldiers against their will. Yet another reason to be against this idea. I'd much rather the money was spent on health and education.