Army reforms: your ideas ?

[The Lawspeaker]

In the case of the Dutch armed forces - they are currently being destroyed by our government through cutbacks. I personally think that this is quite silly and that the draft should be reinstituted and the armed forces itself reformed to meet the needs of at least the first three decades of the 21th century.

I think that our professional army should, for the time being, not be enlarged as the country has shown it's metal in countless peacekeeping missions (and the armed forces are pretty much worn out) but that we should look for more effective soldiering and that the armed forces should be involved in four roles only:

1. The defence of the territory of, the ground below, the waters around or the sky above the Kingdom of the Netherlands against intrusions, invasions, terrorist activity and the defence of our allies in accordance to Art. 5 of the NATO treaty etc. This excludes NATO interventions and or "peacekeeping missions" on behalf of said NATO or the UN.

2. Protection of Dutch state- or private property and Dutch citizens around the world (as in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy operations, the protection of embassies and of Dutch citizens that find themselves in a dangerous situation and thus need to be evacuated to an embassy or out of the country. This also includes the protection of Dutch ships in pirate-infested waters.

3. Humanitarian missions in our own country (during flooding or other unfortunate incidents) and/or verwantschapslanden (those countries that belonged to the Dutch colonial realm: South Africa, Indonesia, Suriname, the former Netherlands Antilles) and/or our European and transatlantic partners. Also small humanitarian missions for the UN, OSCE are part of that: observers, guard detachment and medical staff.

4. The protection of Dutch democracy against a potentially overbearing government or overbearing private party (following the old Turkish model).


First of all: maybe it is time to change the weapons that are in current use. The Dutch army is currently giving the Diemaco C7 (Colt Canada C7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle)) an overhaul (referring to it as the Diemaco C8) which could certainly lengthen it's use for another two decades or so.

I think that NATO should phase out the 5.56 NATO round in favour of a round based on the FN 5.7×28mm round which could penetrate body armour and commission new standard rifles (which can be adapted to the demands of a changing situation) and pistols (maybe an updated FN Five-seven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven#Users)) for all member states based on that round so for instance the Netherlands can begin to phase out a range of personal weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijke_Landmacht#Personal_weapons) in favour of just a few weapon systems. One should also begin to look for a general NATO replacement for the various mortars, machine guns etc.

The time is also there to change the uniforms and the Royal Netherlands Army and the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps should switch to a digicam uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camouflage#Digital_patterns).

http://camopedia.org/images/3/3c/Newdutch.jpg

This one is already set to replace the current Dutch DPM in 2014 (Army only) but I also think that the Marine Corps should get rid of the US Woodland and "Forest Camouflage" (that is currently semi-replacing US Woodland) and opt for the new uniform. For the two services there should also be a desert, winter and tropical version and for the Marine Corps a version based on the colours of the U.S Navy Working Uniform.

In order to cut costs the cavalry, infantry, artillery, guards regiments, maintenance services, medical, counselling, religious, administrative and engineers and national reserve should switch to the brown beret (the army used the brown beret during the Cold War). (the U.N beret, OVSE beret and the other berets used in international missions will be kept intact).

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$%28KGrHqEOKn%21E3Uc6%21i-zBN5+z,SkCQ%7E%7E_35.JPG


The commando's should of course keep their green beret (tradition), the Marine Corps (which is part of the navy) the dark blue beret, the Airborne Brigade should also lose it's red beret and have it replaced with a maroon beret (which is more in line with berets worn in other countries).

The artillery should also adapt the tan beret with the Gele Rijders being the only exception as the garrison cap is a tradition within the ranks of the Gele Rijders (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Afdeling_Rijdende_Artillerie) and has been for ages.

http://www.van-grinsven.nl/michel/hoofddeksels/afbeeldingen/geleRijdersSchuitje2.jpg
Garrison cap - Gele Rijders.

The Air Force and the Royal Dutch Marechaussee (military police) should also be exempted as the Air Force is not part of the Army and the military police should wear different uniforms.

The Royal Military School, Royal Military Academy, Royal Netherlands Naval College and all further academies (from which there quite a few) should be fused into a single unified organisation (there is one (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Defensie_Academie) that covers most of them that was founded in 2005 but it should be expended and get the "Royal" title).

There should also be changes in the cap badges and collar patches:

green for infantry,
Hooker's green for the National Reserve,
black (with a coloured piping) for artillery,
blue (with a coloured piping) for the cavalry,
red for the Marine Corps,
brown for the engineers,
dark blue for the administrative services,
yellow for technical services,
green (with a coloured piping) for commando's
white for the physical education instructors and the medical branch. (which could be fused into a single organisation)
purple for the religious services such as the aalmoezenier and the humanistisch raadsman. The psychological branch could be fused into that.
dark grey for the judicial services (where applicable)
tan (with a black lining) for cadets.


The garderegimenten should keep their collar patches and cap badges but simply see the background colour replaced so it is clear what part of the Army they are in.

The army could also start cutting in some of it's services and get rid of the army rabbi, army pandit and army imam but retain services for Christians (protestant or catholic) and humanists/atheists (humanistisch raadsman). It should also become more selective in who it hires: people with a double passport should not be allowed to serve (in any way, shape or form). So those people should be the first to go since they could have dual loyalties.

And maybe the Armed Forces should begin to study the possibility of opting for the Modular Boot System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Boot_System) when the time is there. The government should certainly show some interest and work together with the Americans on that one.

Here is a picture (http://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/4997097872/) of what it would look like. Also the new helmet (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?154035-New-Dutch-helmet-2011) should be implemented as soon as possible.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8624/tnogaleah.jpg

(I will write more when it comes to mind).

[The Ripper]

The same is happening in Finland.

[Sinbad]

More specialist teams, air, sea and land for all.

It would save £££ in the long run...

[Milenko]

Conscripted vs Standing Army whats better in or oppinion?

[The Lawspeaker]

Conscripted vs Standing Army whats better in or oppinion?
Conscription. As standing armies are professional armies that are more easily deployed at the whims of an elite. Conscript armies are national armies and thus the army of the people.

[пустиняк]

No gays that's the best we can do

[Duke]

I think Swiss model is best, but expensive as hell, and probably wouldn't work in Balkans.

Conscription is next best thing, and I shit on my country for removing it, but you can still voluntary do it.

When it was active, there was 2 choices, to serve it, or to do Civil service for "pacifists", and that would be helping old people, and similar stuff

[Milenko]

Conscription. As standing armies are professional armies that are more easily deployed at the whims of an elite. Conscript armies are national armies and thus the army of the people.

but witch is better, conscript give u numbers, but standing gives u quality or does it depend on the size of the population and area of the country, what ones choose?

[The Lawspeaker]

but witch is better, conscript give u numbers, but standing gives u quality or does it depend on the size of the population and area of the country, what ones choose?
I think you know my position:


Conscription. As standing armies are professional armies that are more easily deployed at the whims of an elite. Conscript armies are national armies and thus the army of the people.

As based on the Swiss model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland). And the Swiss have a very good army.

[Gaztelu]

I hear that the NL is adopting the HK416, which has been proven to be an excellent rifle and a good choice for the Dutch armed forces.

However, I agree that the 5.56×45mm NATO is an obsolete cartridge and should be replaced 7.62×51mm NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO)* or the 6.8 mm Remington SPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC), or the FN 5.7×28mm*, as Civis mentioned.

*The HK417 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK417) is the 416's heavier counterpart that uses this cartridge.

*FN should also consider manufacturing a model of the SCAR that fires 5.7×28mm ammunition.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Standing armies are better for developing and retaining specialized skills needed for modern militaries.

In general for western militaries, a lot of WWII/Cold War era formations like armored units, artillery, and air-to-air fighters are obsolete and should be discontinued. Surface warships (other than aircraft carriers) have some use in anti-piracy operations but otherwise should be scaled down.

[Smaland]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Minuteman3launch.jpg/300px-Minuteman3launch.jpg

All of our land-based ICBM's could be based aboard heavy-lift dirigibles.

The entire missile force would be in the air at all times, except for maintenance and to exchange flight crews. With a sufficient cruising speed, and following random flight paths above the United States, this basing mode would make our missile force virtually impossible to attack, at least with current technologies.

[The Lawspeaker]

I hear that the NL is adopting the HK416, which has been proven to be an excellent rifle and a good choice for the Dutch armed forces.

However, I agree that the 5.56×45mm NATO is an obsolete cartridge and should be replaced 7.62×51mm NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO)* or the 6.8 mm Remington SPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC), or the FN 5.7×28mm*, as Civis mentioned.

*The HK417 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK417) is the 416's heavier counterpart that uses this cartridge.

*FN should also consider manufacturing a model of the SCAR that fires 5.7×28mm ammunition.
The HK416 will only be for the Marine Corps - the Army however will still have to make due with the Diemaco. I really think that the government should replace the Diemaco with the HK416 and also use the weapon for the police and Marechaussee.

[Sinbad]

Conscripted vs Standing Army whats better in or oppinion?

Conscription of corse...

[2DREZQ]

I think that NATO should phase out the 5.56 NATO round in favour of a round based on the FN 5.7×28mm round which could penetrate body armour and commission new standard rifles (which can be adapted to the demands of a changing situation) and pistols (maybe an updated FN Five-seven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven#Users)) for all member states based on that round


That is a fairly BAD idea. The 5.56's development capabilities have not yet been fully exploited. If you are going to depart from it going down the range and energy scale is NOT a good idea for an infantry rifle. Going up-caliber to something like the 6.5 Grendel would be a better choice if one must abandon the 5.56x45. We downsized from the 7.62 mostly because the weight of ammo an individual soldier must carry, and 5.56 weighs about 1/2 as much. The 5.7 is a pipsqueak of very limited range by comparison, and more easily stopped by body armor than the 5.56 It does have a role to play in many niche scenario's, when used in the FN P90, but as the grunts main rifle? Nope.

As to the FiveSeven pistol? Bigger, Heavier, more awkward to handle. Almost nobody trains their pistol-packing troops how to effectively USE their sidearm, and the more difficult it is to use, the less likely it is to be of any value other than cold comfort. (If you're enamored of the caliber, issue the P90 instead of a sidearm.) Well trained personnel would be better served with a 1911 in .45ACP. Easy to handle and shoot, even for a smallish woman, and the 45 has a century long history of knocking things down quickly. Attempts to overcome the ballistic disadvantages of the revolver and pistol have been going on for longer than that, and the problem has proved intractable; If it is designed to fire with one hand and be carried in a hip holster-then the more effective it is, the less fun it is to actually use.

[2DREZQ]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Minuteman3launch.jpg/300px-Minuteman3launch.jpg

All of our land-based ICBM's could be based aboard heavy-lift dirigibles.

The entire missile force would be in the air at all times, except for maintenance and to exchange flight crews. With a sufficient cruising speed, and following random flight paths above the United States, this basing mode would make our missile force virtually impossible to attack, at least with current technologies.


Oh yes. Regardless of the technical merits of such a system, can you just IMAGINE how well Joe Everyman would enjoy the concept of armed nuclear warheads Drifting lazily overhead in the HINDENBURG? Do you remember how much fun we had trying to convince the public that a rail/racetrack based MX missile system was a good idea? Try selling this idea to the voting public.

You'd do better selling Mohammed voodoo dolls in downtown Tehran.

[Sinbad]

The illicit proliferation of small arms and light weapons(SALW)Has a detrimental impact on regional sucority, fueling and prolonging excisting conflicts thereby destabilising regions and exasperating International sucurity.
The illicit trafficking of these types of weapons(SALW)Often hamper the Succussful Implimentation of peacekeeping operations and development Initavitives thus undermining the potential for lasting sucurity at the regional and global level.
Many of the sucurity threats that we face today as organisations, states and regions, can be linked to the persuasive problem of illicit SALW, terrorists, organised criminal gangs, insurgents and even pirates, often find their crimes much easier to commit due to easy access of these weapons.
Maybe we should be more responsible for our own firearms, so this type of thing dosn't happen, I think the figures are from 200 million SALW in use around the world 65 million disappear into the criminal world.
If you are lucky enough to own a firearm(as I do)then look after it at all times.

SMLE Lee Enfield No5 jungle carbine, is what I use in my garden, at a week-end.
I like lee Enfield .303 anything from 1916 onwards. I have of corse used modern day long barrels, I prefer the older weapons more caricature and skill.

[2DREZQ]

Maybe we should be more responsible for our own firearms, so this type of thing dosn't happen,

For decades the USSR was handing out AK's like they were cotton candy at the fair to anyone who wanted them. They are about as difficult to manufacture as a good lawn chair. controlling weapons in shithole countries is a fantasy. The failure of governance is the problem. Take away all the guns (by magic, that's the only way it will happen.)and the machete's will be just as effective at maintaining a delightful level of mayhem.

[Smaland]

Oh yes. Regardless of the technical merits of such a system, can you just IMAGINE how well Joe Everyman would enjoy the concept of armed nuclear warheads Drifting lazily overhead in the HINDENBURG? Do you remember how much fun we had trying to convince the public that a rail/racetrack based MX missile system was a good idea? Try selling this idea to the voting public.

You'd do better selling Mohammed voodoo dolls in downtown Tehran.



I do see your point (although I still think it's a good idea). :D

As an alternative, the dirigibles could fly over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico, not too far off the coastline. The airships might be more vulnerable to attack, but the missiles could still be more survivable than they are now. :)

[2DREZQ]

As an alternative, the dirigibles could fly over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico, not too far off the coastline. The airships might be more vulnerable to attack, but the missiles could still be more survivable than they are now. :)

The technical aspects would be easy to work out, but you would lose the inherent advantage in protecting a missile deep in your own territory that way. Getting a SAM within range of a bunch of gasbags over the heartland would be daunting. Over the ocean? Not so much.

My biggest objection is that I don't see any advantage to be gained with this concept over our current Trident fleet, and you lose the stealthiness to boot.

[Smaland]

The technical aspects would be easy to work out, but you would lose the inherent advantage in protecting a missile deep in your own territory that way. Getting a SAM within range of a bunch of gasbags over the heartland would be daunting. Over the ocean? Not so much.

True, I proposed this only so that skeptical voters might be won over.

The airships would be less defensible over the oceans, but we might be able to retain some of the utility of the original idea.

Let us suppose that the airships were flying over the heartland at high altitude, and that the Chinese tried to wipe them out in a first strike; the sky would be filled with hundreds of air bursts. As awful as that would be, it would still be preferable to the same number of ground bursts, with the attendant property destruction and fallout. This is pretty sobering to think about, but it could be used as a selling point, if it were phrased correctly.

Airships should be easy for Russia to count with its spy satellites, and this might be a selling point for those who want to preserve the arms control status quo.


My biggest objection is that I don't see any advantage to be gained with this concept over our current Trident fleet, and you lose the stealthiness to boot.

I agree that an air-mobile missile force would be no more capable than the Trident fleet we already have. However, I don't want to put the Minutemen in competition with the boomers, I want to strengthen the strategic triad by making the Minutemen much more survivable.

Currently, our land-based ICBM's are located in fixed positions, and so they can be wiped out with a sufficiently large first strike. ICBM's carried on airships wouldn't be the least bit stealthy, but they would be very difficult to hit. Survivability is the key point.

It can be done with further developments of an off-the-shelf technology (airships), at an acceptable cost. :)

[2DREZQ]

the sky would be filled with hundreds of air bursts. As awful as that would be, it would still be preferable to the same number of ground bursts, with the attendant property destruction and fallout.I want to strengthen the strategic triad by making the Minutemen much more survivable.


I could be wrong, but isn't it the other way around? Can't remember anymore.


Currently, our land-based ICBM's are located in fixed positions, and so they can be wiped out with a sufficiently large first strike. ICBM's carried on airships wouldn't be the least bit stealthy, but they would be very difficult to hit. Survivability is the key point.

In the event of an actual nuclear exchange, yes. But hardened silos are essentially immune to terrorist strike, but you could fly a Cessna into a dirigible with ease.


It can be done with further developments of an off-the-shelf technology (airships), at an acceptable cost. :)

The airship might be more or less off the shelf. The carry and launch mechanism would be a cast iron bitch to create. I DO NOT want to be on the first test launch flight!

[Smaland]

The airship might be more or less off the shelf. The carry and launch mechanism would be a cast iron bitch to create. I DO NOT want to be on the first test launch flight!

The video below is a partial record of a successful test of an air-launched ICBM by USAF (United States Air Force) on 24 October 1974. A Minuteman I missile was launched from a C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft while the transport was in flight. If a missile can be launched from a flying aircraft, it stands to reason that the same can be done from an airship. :)

It7SQ546xRk

[The Lawspeaker]

In the case of the Dutch armed forces - they are currently being destroyed by our government through cutbacks. I personally think that this is quite silly and that the draft should be reinstituted and the armed forces itself reformed to meet the needs of at least the first three decades of the 21th century.

I think that our professional army should, for the time being, not be enlarged as the country has shown it's metal in countless peacekeeping missions (and the armed forces are pretty much worn out) but that we should look for more effective soldiering and that the armed forces should be involved in four roles only:

1. The defence of the territory of, the ground below, the waters around or the sky above the Kingdom of the Netherlands against intrusions, invasions, terrorist activity and the defence of our allies in accordance to Art. 5 of the NATO treaty etc. This excludes NATO interventions and or "peacekeeping missions" on behalf of said NATO or the UN.

2. Protection of Dutch state- or private property and Dutch citizens around the world (as in counter-terrorism, counter-piracy operations, the protection of embassies and of Dutch citizens that find themselves in a dangerous situation and thus need to be evacuated to an embassy or out of the country. This also includes the protection of Dutch ships in pirate-infested waters.

3. Humanitarian missions in our own country (during flooding or other unfortunate incidents) and/or verwantschapslanden (those countries that belonged to the Dutch colonial realm: South Africa, Indonesia, Suriname, the former Netherlands Antilles) and/or our European and transatlantic partners. Also small humanitarian missions for the UN, OSCE are part of that: observers, guard detachment and medical staff.

4. The protection of Dutch democracy against a potentially overbearing government or overbearing private party (following the old Turkish model).


First of all: maybe it is time to change the weapons that are in current use. The Dutch army is currently giving the Diemaco C7 (Colt Canada C7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle)) an overhaul (referring to it as the Diemaco C8) which could certainly lengthen it's use for another two decades or so.

I think that NATO should phase out the 5.56 NATO round in favour of a round based on the FN 5.7×28mm round which could penetrate body armour and commission new standard rifles (which can be adapted to the demands of a changing situation) and pistols (maybe an updated FN Five-seven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven#Users)) for all member states based on that round so for instance the Netherlands can begin to phase out a range of personal weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijke_Landmacht#Personal_weapons) in favour of just a few weapon systems. One should also begin to look for a general NATO replacement for the various mortars, machine guns etc.

The time is also there to change the uniforms and the Royal Netherlands Army and the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps should switch to a digicam uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camouflage#Digital_patterns).

http://camopedia.org/images/3/3c/Newdutch.jpg

This one is already set to replace the current Dutch DPM in 2014 (Army only) but I also think that the Marine Corps should get rid of the US Woodland and "Forest Camouflage" (that is currently semi-replacing US Woodland) and opt for the new uniform. For the two services there should also be a desert, winter and tropical version and for the Marine Corps a version based on the colours of the U.S Navy Working Uniform.

In order to cut costs the cavalry, infantry, artillery, guards regiments, maintenance services, medical, counselling, religious, administrative and engineers and national reserve should switch to should switch to the brown beret (the army used the brown beret during the Cold War). (the U.N beret, OVSE beret and the other berets used in international missions will be kept intact).

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/$%28KGrHqEOKn%21E3Uc6%21i-zBN5+z,SkCQ%7E%7E_35.JPG


The commando's should of course keep their green beret (tradition), the Marine Corps (which is part of the navy) the dark blue beret, the Airborne Brigade should also lose it's red beret and have it replaced with a maroon beret (which is more in line with berets worn in other countries).

The artillery should also adapt the tan beret with the Gele Rijders being the only exception as the garrison cap is a tradition within the ranks of the Gele Rijders (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Afdeling_Rijdende_Artillerie) and has been for ages.

http://www.van-grinsven.nl/michel/hoofddeksels/afbeeldingen/geleRijdersSchuitje2.jpg
Garrison cap - Gele Rijders.

The Air Force and the Royal Dutch Marechaussee (military police) should also be exempted as the Air Force is not part of the Army and the military police should wear different uniforms.

The Royal Military School, Royal Military Academy, Royal Netherlands Naval College and all further academies (from which there quite a few) should be fused into a single unified organisation (there is one (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Defensie_Academie) that covers most of them that was founded in 2005 but it should be expended and get the "Royal" title).

There should also be changes in the cap badges and collar patches:

green for infantry,
Hooker's green for the National Reserve,
black (with a coloured piping) for artillery,
blue (with a coloured piping) for the cavalry,
red for the Marine Corps,
brown for the engineers,
dark blue for the administrative services,
yellow for technical services,
green (with a coloured piping) for commando's
white for the physical education instructors and the medical branch. (which could be fused into a single organisation)
purple for the religious services such as the aalmoezenier and the humanistisch raadsman. The psychological branch could be fused into that.
dark grey for the judicial services (where applicable)
tan (with a black lining) for cadets.


The garderegimenten should keep their collar patches and cap badges but simply see the background colour replaced so it is clear what part of the Army they are in.

The army could also start cutting in some of it's services and get rid of the army rabbi, army pandit and army imam but retain services for Christians (protestant or catholic) and humanists/atheists (humanistisch raadsman). It should also become more selective in who it hires: people with a double passport should not be allowed to serve (in any way, shape or form). So those people should be the first to go since they could have dual loyalties.

And maybe the Armed Forces should begin to study the possibility of opting for the Modular Boot System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Boot_System) when the time is there. The government should certainly show some interest and work together with the Americans on that one.

Here is a picture (http://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/4997097872/) of what it would look like. Also the new helmet (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?154035-New-Dutch-helmet-2011) should be implemented as soon as possible.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8624/tnogaleah.jpg

(I will write more when it comes to mind).

I have some more ideas.

As I said before I am in favour of the draft and I think we should return to it but it should not be as it was during the Cold War as, currently, it isn't necessary. So what should be done is this:

The draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_Netherlands), that existed during the Cold War, should be reviewed. But this time only 25.000 men and women (circumventing Art. 1 of the Dutch constitution which was used to get rid of the draft some 15 years earlier) a year should be called up when they are 21 (instead of the previous 18 during the Cold War). They can receive a temporal dispensation because they are studying - or a complete one when it conflicts with their religion or their morality (conscientious objectors - and they should state that under oath) - which will mean in turn that conscientious objectors will not be allowed to bear arms in any way, shape or form. So a weapons permit in civvie street should, at all times, be denied to them and if such a person is ever found with a weapon or has been arrested for violence that person should not just face the music for the committed offence but also for perjury (and if found guilty receive the maximum punishments for those offences - which should be mandated by law).

Sole children will also be exempt from the draft if at least of their parents is still alive but they should be allowed to volunteer.

Since the government should not have access to ones medical record it should be mandated that the organisation of the armed forces that distributes the draft letters only gets to see who is "Geschikt" and "Ongeschikt" (Fit or unfit) for the draft and only those that are theoretically fit for the draft will receive a draft letter and they will be called up for a medical and psychological examination to confirm whether they are fit or not and then be drafted.

Those that are not called up will be filed under a kind of Selective Service System as is in use in the United States. They will not receive a draft letter until there is a chance that a general mobilisation will be announced.

Military service will be 18 months instead of the previous 9.

XU3ezksnGvk

Added: returning to the system that was in use during the 1970s and 1980s ("Donderslag") each year a battalion (that can be brought to full strength) will be mobilised to full strength in a military readiness exercise.

It should not be allowed (apart from army manoeuvres in let's say Germany or Norway and other NATO-partners) to send conscripts abroad against their will (unless during war time- when the States-General actually officially declares a state of war) and they will get the normal minimum wage because everything else has already been cared for.

5YF4MC1_Dcg
Y7N2CyBpft4
(The Royal Netherlands Army in 1966). This is where this army should go back to. But, of course, a more modernised version of it and using the absolutely state-of-the art equipment.

[Sinbad]

Bring back National service today in the UK for a start.

[Aces High]

Bring back National service today in the UK for a start.

For what reason..?

[Sinbad]

For what reason..?

To give the youth of today discipline and a future.
Also to give the forces more candidates and choice.......

[Thunderkin]

Just go Starship Troopers and finish building those god damn exo-suits already.