The Draft?

[The Lawspeaker]

What are your feelings towards compulsory military service for all men (and women) ? And your feelings towards an alternative "civilian" service ?

Discuss.

[The Lawspeaker]

I am in favour of the Draft since I am in favour of the idea of a people's community and equal rights for citizens-- and giving citizens the means to defend themselves against a State that could go out of control.

By enacting compulsory military service a citizen is provided with military training and thus we can breach the State's monopoly on violence and spread the power to control the State and their own destiny to the people. In the Netherlands we had (and have- in a sense) military service until it was suspended in 1995.

By calling up all able-bodied (as well as able-spirited if you may) male (and female) citizens at the age of 21 for 2 year military service we can turn the army into a force of the people. For those that would have moral problems with serving we could provide an alternative service. We could f.i have them help out the elderly and disabled and provide those serving with important moral lessons that will guide them through life.

[Eldritch]

Finland has mandatory conscription/military service for all able-bodied male citizens and I think it should stay that way. There's also the option of civil service, as well as unarmed service in the military but not a problematically large segment use it.

English page of the Finnish armed forces. (http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/portal/puolustusvoimat.fi/english)

[Oinakos Growion]

The "way of the warrior" is not for everybody. By having a compulsory draft you'll always have large sections of people unhappy with the situation, messing up other life plans (education, research, work, etc). Plus it is very expensive to maintain such large numbers of non-professional troops just for the sake of having them. A fully professional army is more cost efficient, they're better trained and whoever wants to join, joins.
Having said that, basic knowledge of "what to do in case of" should be passed onto people. Maybe at school?

PS. If a state goes "out of control" you might have some training and maybe a gun. They'll still have the tanks and fighter jets. There's other ways to take a rogue government down.

[Psychonaut]

I like the way we used to do things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29). I also like the way the Swiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland) and the Finns (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231337&postcount=3) do things. I would very much like to see both a return to this type of militia system, but with one change: entrance would not be compulsory, but service would be a prerequisite for full citizenship (voting rights, benefits, etc).

[Arrow Cross]

I've eagerly waited for it all my childhood, only to get abolished a few years before I reached the formerly designated age.

Perkele.

[Groenewolf]

I've eagerly waited for it all my childhood, only to get abolished a few years before I reached the formerly designated age.

Perkele.

You could still volunteer.;)

[Wulfhere]

Our policy in Sovereign Mercia (see link below) is to draft all young people, male and female, between the ages of 17 and 24 into military and police service.

[Sol Invictus]

I think the armed forces should be disbanded, and national defense should fall upon the citizen's militia. The Army does nothing but serve an imperialist agenda.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think the armed forces should be disbanded, and national defense should fall upon the citizen's militia. The Army does nothing but serve an imperialist agenda.
It's both essentially the same thing. There should be a constitutional mandate that the Armed Forces can only protect ones national territory - essentially a national or federal militia.
What I want is essentially the Swiss system.

[Vasconcelos]

I favour either the Swiss system or a standing professional army with no draft. Also, there is no need to have an army full of conscripts these days in Europe, no one is stupid enough to invade an European country anyway.

[Groenewolf]

No one is stupid enough to invade an European country anyway.

Military that is.

[The Lawspeaker]

I favour either the Swiss system or a standing professional army with no draft. Also, there is no need to have an army full of conscripts these days in Europe, no one is stupid enough to invade an European country anyway.
What doesn't happen yet can happen tomorrow. We thought the same thing in the 1920's and woke up to the sound on roaring aircraft engines on May 10, 1940...
Today Islam is knocking on our door.

[Sol Invictus]

It's both essentially the same thing. There should be a constitutional mandate that the Armed Forces can only protect ones national territory - essentially a national or federal militia.
What I want is essentially the Swiss system.

A Militiaman defends his home and community. A soldier in today's Army goes overseas and takes control of poppyfields, kicking down innocent people's doors, and subjecting them to evils unspeakable. They are in no way the same. Professional soldiers are a waste of taxpayer's dollars and do more harm than good.

[The Lawspeaker]

A Militiaman defends his home and community. A soldier in today's Army goes overseas and takes control of poppyfields, kicking down innocent people's doors, and subjecting them to evils unspeakable.
There is a difference between an army and an army. The Swiss have an army but I can't remember the last time Switzerland invaded a country. The Swiss army is an army based on a militia.

[Sol Invictus]

The Swiss have an army but I can't remember the last time Switzerland invaded a country. The Swiss army is an army based on a militia.

We are in agreement there.

[Vasconcelos]

oday Islam is knocking on our door.
True, but in a different way than it did centuries ago, they ain't going to throw an army into Europe, it's another type of invasion, one that a large army won't help, immigrants, cultural invasion, stealthy terrorist infitrating and undermining our societies and so on.

[Tyrrhenoi]

True, but in a different way than it did centuries ago, they ain't going to throw an army into Europe, it's another type of invasion, one that a large army won't help, immigrants, cultural invasion, stealthy terrorist infitrating and undermining our societies and so on.

Yes, and a large army can help deport them to arabia/africa, before it's to late :D We just need the politics to support the cause :D

[The Lawspeaker]

I still think that one certain element of the army should remain internationally integrated and consisting out of volunteers from the Netherlands and Germany ("Belgians" should be allowed to join as well- but serving under Dutch command in a Dutch uniform until the Netherlands has been reunified) and help when disaster strikes anywhere (humanitarian missions) in Europe and for the defense of Germany and the Netherlands: the I. German/Dutch Corps which happens to be based in Munster, Germany.

Also elements of the Navy and the former Naval Aviation Services can be used in defence against pirates and for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against illegal immigrants.

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, and a large army can help deport them to arabia/africa, before it's to late :D We just need the politics to support the cause :D

Fairytales.

[Arrow Cross]

You could still volunteer.;)
I went for the military academy, got rejected thanks to my minor scoliosis. Same at the police. Crazy "democratic" days. It's like they're selecting troops for the SS.

[The Lawspeaker]

I went for the military academy, got rejected thanks to my minor scoliosis. Same at the police. Crazy "democratic" days. It's like they're selecting troops for the SS.
Exactly. They are more selecting mercenaries nowadays then defenders of a country. You could still have done good work in a non-combat unit I guess.

[Tyrrhenoi]

Fairytales.

History repeats it's self - you wait and see :)

[Eldritch]

The "way of the warrior" is not for everybody. By having a compulsory draft you'll always have large sections of people unhappy with the situation, messing up other life plans (education, research, work, etc). Plus it is very expensive to maintain such large numbers of non-professional troops just for the sake of having them. A fully professional army is more cost efficient, they're better trained and whoever wants to join, joins.


Finland is a geographically (relatively) large country with a tiny population, and a long border with Russia. In such circumstances a small, professional elite army is not feasible.


I also like the way the Swiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland) and the Finns (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231337&postcount=3) do things.

Norway has the same system as we do, and Sweden is currently in the process of giving it up (they can afford to, since they have us as a buffer state between them and Russia :p).


Our policy in Sovereign Mercia (see link below) is to draft all young people, male and female, between the ages of 17 and 24 into military and police service.

What would the service uniforms and training program for female conscripts be like? :p

[The Lawspeaker]

What would the service uniforms and training program for female conscripts be like? :p
Something like this I think--- with the general age being around 14, 15 to Wulfhere's pleasure.....:rolleyes:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41j%2Brzhoz6L._SS500_.jpg

[Sol Invictus]

History repeats it's self - you wait and see :)

In all likeliness it will be you who will be deported, not the otherway around. You wait and see.

[RoyBatty]

What are your feelings towards compulsory military service for all men (and women) ? And your feelings towards an alternative "civilian" service ?

Discuss.

It's very simple.

If you're conscripted for one or two years to:

- perform socially useful labour for your country
- you are militarily trained and then get posted to a position from which to defend your country

it's all good.

If you are drafted to be cannon fodder in some foreign land to further the political and financial aims of the Plutocrats who happen to run your country at the time, conscription is a VERY VERY BAD THING.

[Laudanum]

In my opinion nobody should have to join the army unless there's some really dangerous war going on and it's really needed.

[Eldritch]

In my opinion nobody should have to join the army unless there's some really dangerous war going on and it's really needed.

At that point it's already too late. You can't just fart out an army out of nothing in a couple of days. You have to prepare ahead for all eventualities, prepare for the worst thing that could possibly happen to your country.

[Laudanum]

At that point it's already too late. You can't just fart out an army out of nothing in a couple of days. You have to prepare ahead for all eventualities, prepare for the worst thing that could possibly happen to your country.

I think the army in my country is kinda ok at the moment. There are plenty of people who want to join the army, and there are plenty of people already in the army. If there wouldn't be as many people in the army I would agree with you.

[Wulfhere]

What would the service uniforms and training program for female conscripts be like? :p

Photos and details are on our website, here: http://sovereignmercia.angelfire.com/#Youth

[Nodens]

I like the way we used to do things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29). I also like the way the Swiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland) and the Finns (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231337&postcount=3) do things. I would very much like to see both a return to this type of militia system, but with one change: entrance would not be compulsory, but service would be a prerequisite for full citizenship (voting rights, benefits, etc).

Agree, with the addition of a small standing volunteer army at all times, focused primarily on elite forces (i.e. marines/spetsnaz/SS).

Edit: And possibly a civil service alternative of some sort.

[Oinakos Growion]

Finland is a geographically (relatively) large country with a tiny population, and a long border with Russia. In such circumstances a small, professional elite army is not feasible
Fair point there. I was obviously thinking about our own case ;)

[The Lawspeaker]

Photos and details are on our website, here: http://sovereignmercia.angelfire.com/#Youth
Jesus bloody Christ.. those are 15 year old girls in sporting jackets.
You are a very weird character...
But you want to call them up between 17 and 24. At 17 they are child soldiers.

[Wulfhere]

Jesus bloody Christ.. those are 15 year old girls in sporting jackets.
You are a very weird character...
But you want to call them up between 17 and 24. At 17 they are child soldiers.

They are trainees. And 17-year-olds are not children.

[The Lawspeaker]

They are trainees.
At like 15, 16? That's downright perverted.

[Piparskeggr]

I am against forcing men and women into servitude of any sort. One must always have freedom of choice.

I do, however, think that Robert A Heinlein had a good idea; only veterans (those who have chosen to give of themselves formally to society, either in a military or civilian capacity) get to vote.

I chose to serve, as did my wife, and I do think we are bettered by the experience.

[Wulfhere]

At like 15, 16? That's downright perverted.

No, it isn't. Those between 12 and 17 will receive basic training, and be drafted at 17.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's way to young. That's essentially child soldiering.

[Wulfhere]

That's way to young. That's essentially child soldiering.

No, I disagree. It's the best time to train them.

[The Lawspeaker]

No, I disagree. It's the best time to train them.
It's child soldiering now matter how you twist it.

[Wulfhere]

It's child soldiering now matter how you twist it.

17-year-olds are not children. So making them soldiers is not child soldiering.

[Guapo]

http://sovereignmercia.angelfire.com/index_files/image011.jpg

Fun times I bet

[The Lawspeaker]

17-year-olds are not children. So making them soldiers is not child soldiering.
17-year olds are legally speaking children. They are not allowed to vote, they aren't even allowed to drink a glass of whiskey so why draft them?

They are children. They haven't been through their exams yet.

[Vasconcelos]

15-17 year olds are children, they are supposed to be learning the basics of life, not how to terminate it. Looks like african mentality of giving AK-47 to little boys.

[Wulfhere]

17-year olds are legally speaking children. They are not allowed to vote, they aren't even allowed to drink a glass of whiskey so why draft them?

They are children. They haven't been through their exams yet.

And they won't be allowed to vote until they've completed their military service at the age of 24. As for exams, the whole education system will be overhauled.

[Wulfhere]

15-17 year olds are children, they are supposed to be learning the basics of life, not how to terminate it. Looks like african mentality of giving AK-47 to little boys.

Then I suggest you read our entire manifesto, to see how wrong you are.

[Guapo]

Then I suggest you read our entire manifesto, to see how wrong you are.

Any genocide plans?

[The Lawspeaker]

And they won't be allowed to vote until they've completed their military service at the age of 24. As for exams, the whole education system will be overhauled.
See. You send people to serve that don't even have the right to vote about whether a war is justified.
That's not just child soldiering.. it's also ENSLAVING people. Taking their right to determine their future away from them and sending them off to fight a war for your priestesses.

Pretty perverted and sick way of thinking.

[Wulfhere]

Any genocide plans?

No.

[Guapo]

See. You send people to serve that don't even have the right to vote about whether a war is justified.
That's not just child soldiering.. it's also ENSLAVING people. Taking their right to determine their future away from them and sending them off to fight a war for your priestesses.

Pretty perverted and sick way of thinking.

Maybe they can fight by using their new magical Druidian powers after being naked around a campfire.

[Wulfhere]

See. You send people to serve that don't even have the right to vote about whether a war is justified.
That's not just child soldiering.. it's also ENSLAVING people. Taking their right to determine their future away from them and sending them off to fight a war for your priestesses.

Pretty perverted and sick way of thinking.

They earn the right to vote. But the thing is we won't be indulging in overseas wars anyway. The defence force is exactly what it says. Most of its work will be police work.

[Saruman]

Hey check out Wulfhere's first link, he added photo of Mercia's first Folk Mother!:thumb001:

[Guapo]

Three cheers for wulfhere. "Hip Hip Hooray" or in Hungarian "Huj Huj Hajrá"

[Germanicus]

Asega is right, at 17 they have not got the right to give their lives for their country. Lets give them until they can legally give their lives at 18.

[Wulfhere]

Asega is right, at 17 they have not got the right to give their lives for their country. Lets give them until they can legally give their lives at 18.

You're just talking about arbitrary limits defined by law, and laws can be changed.

[The Lawspeaker]

Asega is right, at 17 they have not got the right to give their lives for their country. Lets give them until they can legally give their lives at 18.
I think that 18 is still too young too. 21 is old enough. Maybe even 25 as then the brains are fully developed and they can comprehend what "voting" is about so they are also ready to serve in the military.

[Germanicus]

You're just talking about arbitrary limits defined by law, and laws can be changed.

Ok Wulfie we know you do not agree with the laws that be, but until your lot gain power and have your little kingdom, the laws of the land will stand.:)

[Eldritch]

http://sovereignmercia.angelfire.com/index_files/image011.jpg

Fun times I bet


Order of Ancient Mercia

Priestesses shall be required to take lifelong vows to abstain from meat, intoxicants, sexual activity and orgasm; avoid all forms of clothing and encumbrances; and spend 9 hours each day, in 3 shifts, kneeling before their perpetual flame. They shall be legally sacrosanct and inviolable, and exempted from military service and training.


To spend nine hours every day naked on their knees staring into a campfire? Without the slightest doubt.

[Wulfhere]

I think that 18 is still too young too. 21 is old enough. Maybe even 25 as then the brains are fully developed and they can comprehend what "voting" is about so they are also ready to serve in the military.

Clearly, we have different views on the matter. Citizenship is something that has to be earnt.

[Wulfhere]

Ok Wulfie we know you do not agree with the laws that be, but until your lot gain power and have your little kingdom, the laws of the land will stand.:)

A truism that didn't even need pointing out :)

[The Lawspeaker]

Clearly, we have different views on the matter. Citizenship is something that has to be earnt.
Citizenship is a right of birth - acquired by jus soli.

[Wulfhere]

Citizenship is a right of birth - acquired by jus soli.

True... but the right to vote has to be earnt. This is our policy.

[nisse]

The "way of the warrior" is not for everybody. By having a compulsory draft you'll always have large sections of people unhappy with the situation, messing up other life plans (education, research, work, etc).
100% agree. The problem in Ukraine (which has a draft) is that people into whose plans it doesn't fit find illegal ways of avoiding it (i.e. faking doctor's notes, etc.). Obviously, this fosters corruption and all sorts of other unpleasant social phenomena...plus, how likely are peopel to do a good job when they are forced to do something. I believe this would be the case for any draft.


Having said that, basic knowledge of "what to do in case of" should be passed onto people. Maybe at school?
Again, agreed. Back in the USSR (one of the very few things that I think they had right) schools had "civil defence" classes, where people were taught what to do in case of bombardment, how to put on a gas mask, assemble a gun, provide first aid, etc. I think an expanded version of that would be a great idea - this will allow people to be exposed military procedures for a longer time - i.e. mroe time for it to sink in, and will not interfere with plans.

But I think voluntary military participation of a more immersive and comprehensive nature should be encouraged.


Finland is a geographically (relatively) large country with a tiny population, and a long border with Russia. In such circumstances a small, professional elite army is not feasible.
Well, if everyone is scared they'll all volunteer, so no need for a draft either way :thumb001:

[The Lawspeaker]

True... but the right to vote has to be earnt. This is our policy.
So first you let them be slaves. Some way of citizenship. I bet that those drafted will RUN to Free England and end up fighting against your clerical North Korea.

[Wulfhere]

So first you let them be slaves. Some way of citizenship. I bet that those drafted will RUN to Free England and end up fighting against your clerical North Korea.

No, they will find it rewarding and enjoyable.

[The Lawspeaker]

No, they will find it rewarding and enjoyable.
I don't think so.

[Wulfhere]

I don't think so.

Then again we must disagree.

[The Lawspeaker]

Then again we must disagree.
Ooh really? How many people are member of your Independent Mercia-organization ?

[Wulfhere]

Ooh really? How many people are member of your Independent Mercia-organization ?

Over 400, and growing.

[The Lawspeaker]

Over 400, and growing.
399 of which are your alter-ego's.

[Wulfhere]

399 of which are your alter-ego's.

Nope. Please feel free to attend any of our meetings, if you're ever in Mercia.

[The Lawspeaker]

Nope. Please feel free to attend any of our meetings, if you're ever in England.
Sure but that would be an empty room. You, me and some lone donkey.
Even if there would be 400 people. "Mercia" has over 16 million inhabitants. Try to force a plebiscite.. just for the heck of it.

[Wulfhere]

Sure but that would be an empty room. You, me and some lone donkey.

Just try it and see. Our annual camp in September, for example.

[The Lawspeaker]

Just try it and see. Our annual camp in September, for example.
What.. you in a distant field?

[Eldritch]

Just try it and see. Our annual camp in September, for example.

Do you have any pictures or video from previous years' meetings?

This threads needs to be split btw.

[Austin]

Having a national guard type service who's members join willingly and can be activated to go overseas during a conflict and whom receive the same training as the normal military is a good system for modern societies.

I can tell you with utmost certainty that most middle-class youth in the West would not be willing to go die in some foreign country against people who have been firing AK47's since they were ten years old. If you think the Vietnam anti-war youth protests were bad, just wait till you start trying to send people who grew up on computers and ipods over to die against some hardened insurgent type character, I don't think the government would stay in power five minutes, that or Canada and Mexico's population would rise dramatically.

[Guapo]

Nope. Please feel free to attend any of our meetings, if you're ever in Mercia.

I'm in. I'd like to attend those naked campfires.

[Eldritch]

I'm in. I'd like to attend those naked campfires.

Before you book your flight, remember that those priestesses have made life-long wows of virginity.

[Guapo]

Before you book your flight, remember that those priestesses have made life-long wows of virginity.

Meh, so have I.

[Psychonaut]

Citizenship is a right of birth - acquired by jus soli.

The twenty bazillion anchor babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby) born three inches north of the Rio Grande (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande) agree with you... :banging head

[The Lawspeaker]

The twenty bazillion anchor babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby) born three inches north of the Rio Grande (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande) agree with you... :banging head
Err sorry. I must have made a mistake because I meant jus sanguinis..

[The Silent Man]

Great Britain should reintroduce compulsory military service for all men aged 18-20. Men are meant to be men: to be disciplined defenders of their kinfolk. Contemporary British males have been feminized by leftist-liberal social theories.

[Smaland]

I voted the I did because the U.S. Constitution forbids involuntary servitude.

Having said that, if I were young enough, and America were forced into a major war that imperiled our very existence, I wouldn't complain about being drafted. During World War II, my father volunteered to become a Navy pilot when he turned 18. He couldn't pass the physical, but he was drafted by the Army in the months to come, and he was sent to a division that served in the Pacific. He has never been critical of the draft per se.

[RoyBatty]

Great Britain should reintroduce compulsory military service for all men aged 18-20. Men are meant to be men: to be disciplined defenders of their kinfolk. Contemporary British males have been feminized by leftist-liberal social theories.

You're right but as you point out, our superiors and their Social Engineers don't want this. They want an effeminate metrosexualised society. It makes me ill when I see all these "trendy" limpwristed Mac consumer clowns on public transport, in bars etc. Such a society isn't worth preserving, fighting over or dying for.

[Piparskeggr]

I have not reread the thread, so I hope 'm not repeating myself...

I am opposed to involuntary servitude in any form; military or civilian.

My ancestors escaped to what became the USA to avoid such a manifestation of serfdom.

I have looked pretty thoroughly at my family history; my great grandfather Robinson was a draft dodger (getting out of Lithuania at age 14 [in 1886] to avoid being pressed into the Tsar's service.

Others in my family line (from the "wars" against the Red Indians in the mid-1600's to the present time) have volunteered to serve. This includes me, my wife, my brother, my father, my father-in-law, uncles, great-uncles and other close family members...

If one can not serve because one believes that the country in which one lives is worth defending...what's the point?

[Great Dane]

Compulsory national service, either in the military or doing feel-good social work, is a form of serfdom. It harkens back to the medieval era when the peasants owed the local lord a portion of thier labor. The government tells you that you must work for them and under which conditions and at what compensation.

I think many of the wars of the past would have been a lot less bloody if not for the draft. The 2 world wars were as bad as they were because the rulers of Europe had conscription and a huge supply of young men to use as cannon fodder. Vietnam lasted as long as it did because there was a draft. Conscription and the ability to print unlimited amounts of fiat money allowed unlimited destruction. There is no reason to believe that our leaders would use the powers of conscripttion wisely and within reason. Imagine what Obama could do if the United States bought back the draft. Declare war on both Pakistan and Iran? The lack of warm bodies is the only thing preventing it.

Here's another thought: How about letting people do their national service by working on farms. Food is vital to our survival. I would appreciate having the government make people work for me on my terms.:)

Btw, how many of you advocating national service have actually served in the military?

[Psychonaut]

Btw, how many of you advocating national service have actually served in the military?

:wavey001:

And I wasn't in favor of compulsory military service until after I'd joined and served for a while.

[RoyBatty]

Compulsory national service, either in the military or doing feel-good social work, is a form of serfdom. It harkens back to the medieval era when the peasants owed the local lord a portion of thier labor. The government tells you that you must work for them and under which conditions and at what compensation.

You're right, it is a form of serfdom but on the other hand, *if* one's country / society presented you with a set of opportunities, took care of you, nurtured you, educated you, protected you etc etc you do owe some kind of a debt to that society whether you like it or not. To have been taken care of is a privilege, not a "human right" despite what some libby luvvies may claim.

The proponents of the "me", "because I'm worth it", "cult of the individual" will of course disagree with this view because according to them life is all about "freedom", "choice" blah blah.

Imo this is one of the areas where things have started going badly wrong in Western society. Everybody looking out for themselves only. Everybody out to get one over their neighbour in the "competitive" dog-eat-dog world.

Spending a year or two to repay debts to a society which took care of a person isn't too much to ask imo. Besides, gaining some regimental experience and being toughened up a bit are useful life-skills.

On the other hand, I don't under any circumstances support a draft / compulsory military service which involves sending conscripts into conflict zones when it doesn't involve a "last line of homeland defense" scenario.

[Psychonaut]

You're right, it is a form of serfdom but on the other hand, *if* one's country / society presented you with a set of opportunities, took care of you, nurtured you, educated you, protected you etc etc you do owe some kind of a debt to that society whether you like it or not. To have been taken care of is a privilege, not a "human right" despite what some libby luvvies may claim.

Exactly. And, in the case of the military, a nation's citizens are constantly being provided a service by their military, whose very existence acts as a constant deterrent against foreign aggression. Every citizen owes the military a debt, and, to me, it makes perfect sense that, for the able, this debt be payed by lifting a hand and helping directly rather than just by paying taxes.

[Saruman]

There's no real glory in conscript military, weaklings get conscripted. Modern warfare got smaller, no huge armies around, few men in a machine can wipe out 100. Large military is no guarantee of success, send a column of 100 tanks and few Attack helis will take care of those in a minute. Simply put equipment wins it and for it you don't need as many people as before. Air power wins everything, and on guerrilla scale IED's and ambushes with RPG's deal damage, seen against Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya where the weaknesses of that mass scale Soviet system got pronounced and much weaker forces prevailed. SF's is where real men are at, as for the need of learning the trade of war, for those interested it can be learned through various means.

Levies were always poor(er) troops anyway.

[RoyBatty]

There's no real glory in conscript military, weaklings get conscripted.

The conscription concept isn't and shouldn't be about "glory". It is about being taught some valuable life and survival skills, having some discipline instilled, having the "mommy's boy" trashed out you and about performing service to your community and country.

As others have already pointed out one cannot sit around and wait for a war to start before you whip soldiers into shape. It's wayyyy too late by then. Conscripts can and will perform as good as any given situation dictates. It comes down to training levels, experience, motivation, leadership, equipment levels, the type of opponents they are faced with etc. There's no "one situation fits all" type scenario here.

Conscripts are not "weaklings" either. They are simply a cross section of society. Nothing more, nothing less.

There also appears to be confusion over the role/s military conscripts need to fulfill. It doesn't have to and shouldn't be exclusively military of nature. There's no reason why, after basic training, groups cannot be detached to work in local community improvement projects, labour projects, provide assistance during disaster events, etc etc etc.



Modern warfare got smaller, no huge armies around, few men in a machine can wipe out 100. Large military is no guarantee of success, send a column of 100 tanks and few Attack helis will take care of those in a minute. Simply put equipment wins it and for it you don't need as many people as before.


The assumption you're making is that every potential enemy has a sophisticated and well-equipped professional military with the ability to pounce at any location at any time. This assumption is false. "The enemy" are often enough nothing more than local bands of troublemakers with limited military capabilities. In other cases they may be regional troublemakers with limited military capabilities. Every situation will be different.

I doubt that any country with a reasonable defensive capability and organisation are expecting to simply feed an ill-trained and equipped conscription-only force to an experienced, professional adversary.



Air power wins everything, and on guerrilla scale IED's and ambushes with RPG's deal damage, seen against Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya where the weaknesses of that mass scale Soviet system got pronounced and much weaker forces prevailed. SF's is where real men are at, as for the need of learning the trade of war, for those interested it can be learned through various means.


Air power wins you nothing

- unless you have it (not many do)
- you have targets to shoot at and who cannot shoot back

Air power doesn't give one control over what happens on the ground. It can help to eliminate hostile force concentrations but ultimately local control can only be established with boots on the ground.

As for Chechnya, I'm not convinced this is a good example. The first Chechen war was conducted under the control of the NWO and their drunken puppet ruler Yeltsin (who had their own reasons to lose so easily) at the height of Russia's internal collapse.

The second Chechen war under Putin (also fought largely with conscripts) was a much simpler and one-sided affair as would have been expected.

[Saruman]

The conscription concept isn't and shouldn't be about "glory". It is about being taught some valuable life and survival skills, having some discipline instilled, having the "mommy's boy" trashed out you and about performing service to your community and country.

As others have already pointed out one cannot sit around and wait for a war to start before you whip soldiers into shape. It's wayyyy too late by then. Conscripts can and will perform as good as any given situation dictates. It comes down to training levels, experience, motivation, leadership, equipment levels, the type of opponents they are faced with etc. There's no "one situation fits all" type scenario here.
The problem is, as often said, the weakened modern european male, sure military service can help shape him up but it's not a prerequisite. I have sort of "Spartanish" views, war and defense should be popularized, I have nothing against society based, among others, upon war, like Spartans, Vikings etc. i think military, war should be part of the societies way of life, as for ex. society which cannot defend it self cannot survive. To which degree I can debate about that but to some degree for sure. Military should not be a burden, as conscript service is often viewed.


Conscripts are not "weaklings" either. They are simply a cross section of society. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do admit I was too hard.


There also appears to be confusion over the role/s military conscripts need to fulfill. It doesn't have to and shouldn't be exclusively military of nature. There's no reason why, after basic training, groups cannot be detached to work in local community improvement projects, labour projects, provide assistance during disaster events, etc etc etc.
Yes, I remember criticizing one military officer, saying effectively that real soldiers shouldn't do those "petty things", and yes usually conscripts are the first to be sent on those tasks.



The assumption you're making is that every potential enemy has a sophisticated and well-equipped professional military with the ability to pounce at any location at any time. This assumption is false. "The enemy" are often enough nothing more than local bands of troublemakers with limited military capabilities. In other cases they may be regional troublemakers with limited military capabilities. Every situation will be different.

I doubt that any country with a reasonable defensive capability and organization are expecting to simply feed an ill-trained and equipped conscription-only force to an experienced, professional adversary.

Those bands can easily be taken care of, however they often use civilians, hide behind them, a cruel commander can probably take care of them. Germans in WW2 had such policy, and it worked often.




Air power wins you nothing

- unless you have it (not many do)
- you have targets to shoot at and who cannot shoot back

Air power doesn't give one control over what happens on the ground. It can help to eliminate hostile force concentrations but ultimately local control can only be established with boots on the ground.

It deals hell of damage, if you control the air, and it is the point of it that they don't shoot back, it's hard to kill interdiction bombers for ex. like Strike Eagle for ex., they come in fast, deliver and they are gone. Restraint in modern warfare is objectively a limiting factor, make it total war, remove those restraints on Air Force, and it's very difficult for those on the ground. In either case against air power an army with any heavier equipment cannot survive, bands of guerrillas fighting can in big part because of restraint of those on attacking side too.



As for Chechnya, I'm not convinced this is a good example. The first Chechen war was conducted under the control of the NWO and their drunken puppet ruler Yeltsin (who had their own reasons to lose so easily) at the height of Russia's internal collapse.

The second Chechen war under Putin (also fought largely with conscripts) was a much simpler and one-sided affair as would have been expected.

Russian army was poorly trained, reminiscent of Soviet mass attack doctrine where they fielded overwhelming numbers against the enemy, like in WW2, soldier is expendable. Such doctrine can still win(especially with lesser restraint), but modern Russians cannot afford to lose so many people. I don't think 2008 war was great for them either, because it was a conflict of 2 armies working on similar doctrines, and the one with more numbers would simply win it as it has. Russian equipment has been quite poor on defensive side, reflecting that doctrine (specifically IFV's, Tanks compared to western ones).

[Great Dane]

You're right, it is a form of serfdom but on the other hand, *if* one's country / society presented you with a set of opportunities, took care of you, nurtured you, educated you, protected you etc etc you do owe some kind of a debt to that society whether you like it or not. To have been taken care of is a privilege, not a "human right" despite what some libby luvvies may claim.

The right kind of people will volunteer to defend their country in a time of crisis or for an honorable cause. But a draft just provides manpower for all kinds of dumb wars. Even compulsory "volunteerism" for social causes, required in some places to obtain a diploma, is geared towards certain politically correct causes. Just look at the history of how the draft or national service has been used in the past. It has rarely had anything to do with defending the homeland.

We have here in America the National Reserves, which use to not ever be activiated except in times of national disaster. Made up of men who wanted to be prepared to defend their country in a time of crisis. Now reserve units are activated on a regular basis and sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Reserves were exploited because it was a ready source of warm bodies and enabled Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama to go on their foreign adventures without having to resort to a draft.

We could use the armed forces down along our southern border with Mexico but Obama refuses to send help. I don't think a draft would change the situation. The only people doing anything about it are private militiamen, who are willing to defend the border in spite of the government that refuses to do so. If we had national service/draft those militiamen would end up in the Middle East or South Asia.

[The Ripper]

Positive. We have compulsory military/social service and we should keep it.

I've said before that support for general mandatory military service is very high in Finland. I also think it plays an important social role beyond its military role, which has shrunk in recent decades. It is one of the last uniting rituals of a previously cohesive society.

[RoyBatty]

The right kind of people will volunteer to defend their country in a time of crisis or for an honorable cause. But a draft just provides manpower for all kinds of dumb wars. Even compulsory "volunteerism" for social causes, required in some places to obtain a diploma, is geared towards certain politically correct causes. Just look at the history of how the draft or national service has been used in the past. It has rarely had anything to do with defending the homeland.


Taking myself as an example, I wouldn't have volunteered without the stick behind me. The same applies for many many others from my social background. Of course it can be debated whether "we" have "admirable" characters but it's quite common for people to avoid what may appear to be difficult situations if it can be done. They won't necessarily put up much resistance to it either but simply put, if there was an easy way out it would be taken.

End results = lack of manpower



We have here in America the National Reserves, which use to not ever be activiated except in times of national disaster. Made up of men who wanted to be prepared to defend their country in a time of crisis. Now reserve units are activated on a regular basis and sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Reserves were exploited because it was a ready source of warm bodies and enabled Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama to go on their foreign adventures without having to resort to a draft.


You raise a very valid point here and I totally get where you are coming from. This particular scenario = abuse of the system and I am completely against this kind of use of it.

I wouldn't blame Conscription for such a state of affairs though. It is the criminals who could abuse the system to procure cannon-fodder for their rotten wars who are to blame. Unfortunately, in this case, Conscription would provide them with an excuse to pressgang the youth into "service".



We could use the armed forces down along our southern border with Mexico but Obama refuses to send help. I don't think a draft would change the situation. The only people doing anything about it are private militiamen, who are willing to defend the border in spite of the government that refuses to do so. If we had national service/draft those militiamen would end up in the Middle East or South Asia.

Yes, all valid points.

As I said earlier, the Conscription system is a good thing imo, provided it is not abused by the authorities and politicians. The problem is how to safeguard it against such abuse. If one's political leadership are corrupt and working against the national interest (as is the case in the USA) then conscription would be a bad thing.

In smaller countries with serious threats hovering around their borders or even inside their borders, not having conscription may be suicidal.

[The Silent Man]

There's no real glory in conscript military, weaklings get conscripted. Modern warfare got smaller, no huge armies around, few men in a machine can wipe out 100. Large military is no guarantee of success, send a column of 100 tanks and few Attack helis will take care of those in a minute. Simply put equipment wins it and for it you don't need as many people as before. Air power wins everything, and on guerrilla scale IED's and ambushes with RPG's deal damage, seen against Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya where the weaknesses of that mass scale Soviet system got pronounced and much weaker forces prevailed. SF's is where real men are at, as for the need of learning the trade of war, for those interested it can be learned through various means.

Levies were always poor(er) troops anyway.

True. Technology plus professional soldiers equals victory over mass armies. But military service means more than putting boots on the ground. In Britain at least it would instil discipline and a feeling of patriotism in young men and act as a counter-balance to the leftist-liberal feminizing of society. Instead of getting fighting drunk on a Saturday night, British youths could feel pride in service and selflessness.

[julie]

i think the draft is bullsh*t no one should be made to serve their country:)

[The Lawspeaker]

i think the draft is bullsh*t no one should be made to serve their country:)
I think it's a social contract. We are a nation and we are a community of people of the same language and the same blood and we are a welfare state. That means that the community will take care of you when needed so why not defend your community when under attack and be educated on how to do it in peacetime (draft).

It would be just 18 months of your life. :) Rights for all.. also means duties for all.

[julie]

I think it's a social contract. We are a nation and we are a community of people of the same language and the same blood and we are a welfare state. That means that the community will take care of you when needed so why not defend your community when under attack and be educated on how to do it in peacetime (draft).

It would be just 18 months of your life. :) Rights for all.. also means duties for all.

I still feel the same no one should be made too

[RoyBatty]

i think the draft is bullsh*t no one should be made to serve their country:)

Fair enough but on the other hand the current system of automatic citizenship and "rights" are BS too.

These should be earned and worked for the hard way, not handed out for free to all comers by virtue of birth or any other reason. Those who aren't willing to contribute to improving the state, who sponge off the state and who undermine and disrupt it through social, political and economic sabotage are an unwelcome menace and threat, ruining things for all the rest.

These people don't qualify for any "rights". If they want to be "free" they should go exercise their options elsewhere.

[julie]

Fair enough but on the other hand the current system of automatic citizenship and "rights" are BS too.

These should be earned and worked for the hard way, not handed out for free to all comers by virtue of birth or any other reason. Those who aren't willing to contribute to improving the state, who sponge off the state and who undermine and disrupt it through social, political and economic sabotage are an unwelcome menace and threat, ruining things for all the rest.

These people don't qualify for any "rights". If they want to be "free" they should go exercise their options elsewhere.

i agree

[Psychonaut]

These should be earned and worked for the hard way, not handed out for free to all comers by virtue of birth or any other reason.

Aye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers)!

[RoyBatty]

Aye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers)!

Yeah, that's where I stole it from lol, Heinlein, Verhoeven and Ed Neumeier. :D

Great film, like most of Verhoeven's films.

http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1997_Starship_Troopers/997STS_Michael_Ironside_002.jpg

[Gamera]

Do you agree with compulsory enrollment in military service in your country? Why or why not?

Personally, I'm against it for my own country. However, I realize the need of conscription in some countries such as Estonia. An Estonian friend told me it's quite necessary for military service to be compulsory, since they're such a small country and share a border with a country like Russia. Same thing for a country like Israel for example, which is surrounded by hostile nations.

Do share your opinions.

[BeerBaron]

We don't have conscription here, but I wouldn't oppose it. Norway still has conscription, there are many ways to get out of modern conscription as well so its not really absolute conscription.

Though, I am opposed to 3rd worlders having conscription, or a military for that matter.

[Gamera]

Though, I am opposed to 3rd worlders having conscription, or a military for that matter.

Why is that? I'm guessing you think that because of the lack of resources, which could be used in something more useful in those countries?

[BeerBaron]

In some sense, but they have proven highly irresponsible as well, not just to the west but to their own people. 3rd world countries militaries are used against their populations almost every time and they are the largest source for mostly russian small arms equipment to be sold to, further impeding the west. Not to mention the amount of land mines ect ect. Most 3rd world countries would do well under the supervision of the west anyways, the more successful african nations were led by the west vs the rest that are god awful shit holes. Moroccans actually said they were more successful because of France.

[Austin]

I'd be in favor of conscription if the West were racially pure. However in its current form the West is so polluted with blacks, Arabs, and Mestizos and others that I really don't see the point in conscription over private enlistments. Let those who are willing to die for a paycheck do so, I have no ill will to them either way. A job is a job.

A private enlistee army is better than a conscript one anyways which is why Russia is trying to make the switch. Conscript armies are much more corrupt and inefficient in the very nature of how conscripts feel in general and the atmosphere conscription creates among army leadership. In an enlistee army the leadership does not own the soldier, hence the soldier is not miserable and is there on his own accord, increasing his efficiency.

The U.S. army has much petty corruption, much more so than the navy or the airforce, but the U.S. army is nearly pure corruption-wise compared to the best conscript army.

[Gamera]

In some sense, but they have proven highly irresponsible as well, not just to the west but to their own people. 3rd world countries militaries are used against their populations almost every time and they are the largest source for mostly russian small arms equipment to be sold to, further impeding the west. Not to mention the amount of land mines ect ect. Most 3rd world countries would do well under the supervision of the west anyways, the more successful african nations were led by the west vs the rest that are god awful shit holes. Moroccans actually said they were more successful because of France.

Well, Third World armies are far from being perfect, and indeed they have caused more damage than good in many cases.

In Latin America, or in most of it anyway, it would be suicide to abolish the army. Take a look at Colombia for example, they need of their army to protect the population from FARC. Another example, the Operation Jaque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jaque) or Operation Chavin de Huántar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chav%C3%ADn_de_Huantar) are considered the most successful military rescues in the world, and they both happened relatively recently. The army becomes vital in those situations which threaten the integrity of the country, and one can't take for granted it will never happen again, which is something many people do.

Africa is another story I think though, I agree with you there.

[Austin]

Well, Third World armies are far from being perfect, and indeed they have caused more damage than good in many cases.

In Latin America, or in most of it anyway, it would be suicide to abolish the army.


That's because in Latin America the armies are the governments in many cases. Latin America is not comparable to the West at all. It's a hive of inter-meshed corruption at all levels of government. Even in the best Latin America nations this is demonstrably true.

[BeerBaron]

Well, Third World armies are far from being perfect, and indeed they have caused more damage than good in many cases.

In Latin America, or in most of it anyway, it would be suicide to abolish the army. Take a look at Colombia for example, they need of their army to protect the population from FARC. Another example, the Operation Jaque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jaque) or Operation Chavin de Huántar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chav%C3%ADn_de_Huantar) are considered the most successful military rescues in the world, and they both happened relatively recently. The army becomes vital in those situations which threaten the integrity of the country, and one can't take for granted it will never happen again, which is something many people do.

Africa is another story I think though, I agree with you there.

I don't disagree with the effectiveness of a military force in the 3rd world, but I would say those results could have been duplicated or bettered with a NATO or UN peace keeping force. Obviously those current forces would have to expand to be able to do this, but I would favor an international force vs the local force, often local forces, when you start involving the drug trade, are easily corrupted, not that it coulndn't happen to an international force but it would be more difficult, no family ties, different language acts as barriers to corruption.

We can cite the US post war occupation of Japan in this instance as it was a huge success.

[Debaser11]

The ideal nation state would have a conscripted army.

[Humanophage]

No, at least not in the way it is usually done (dragging people into camps for a year or two). Military training should be seriously incorporated in school curriculum and should be taught to both girls and boys. That is both more efficient and less invasive.

Possible exceptions:
Countries in state of a perpetual war on their own land supported by the main ethnicity, permanently mobilised, like Israel or Rhodesia, might have conscription for the purpose of waging this war. That is because military service during wartime, with an enemy and a critical situation to unite the populace, is completely different from peacetime situation, where class and ethnic differences turn it into a degrading prison-like experience. Ethnically homogeneous countries with a high HDI might be exempt from this rule of thumb, but they should strive for a greater degree of automation and specialisation in warfare, to the complete exclusion of manpower.

[Psychonaut]

The problem with conscription based militaries is that they suffer far more morale and discipline problems than volunteer militaries do. This is compounded with the fact that inordinate amounts of time are wasted every two years (which seems the standard conscription time) training a full half of the military how to do extremely basic jobs.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I'd be in favor of conscription if the West were racially pure. However in its current form the West is so polluted with blacks, Arabs, and Mestizos and others that I really don't see the point in conscription over private enlistments. Let those who are willing to die for a paycheck do so, I have no ill will to them either way. A job is a job.

A private enlistee army is better than a conscript one anyways which is why Russia is trying to make the switch. Conscript armies are much more corrupt and inefficient in the very nature of how conscripts feel in general and the atmosphere conscription creates among army leadership. In an enlistee army the leadership does not own the soldier, hence the soldier is not miserable and is there on his own accord, increasing his efficiency.

The U.S. army has much petty corruption, much more so than the navy or the airforce, but the U.S. army is nearly pure corruption-wise compared to the best conscript army.

Pretty much what you & Psychonaut said.

Based on what I have heard from people who were in the military in the last time of conscription during warfare (late 60s and early 70s), it was pretty bad. Some common threads from family & friends in the military at the time:

Massive substance abuse. My dad complains about drunks, but then he thinks anyone who drinks a beer is a drunk, so who knows. Others talk about astronomical heroin use.

Extreme racial polarization. Everyone reports the blacks as hostile, unwilling to work or do anything. The military was officially integrated at this time, ever since the Korean war, but in reality the blacks collected together, acted hostile to whites, and didn't want to do much of any fighting. Even the asians didn't like them.

Stupidity/inexperience. One story I heard recently from a Vietnam Vet. They kept getting 'replacements', newly arrived people without combat experience. They would tell the replacements "don't shoot at helicopters, because we're the only ones with helicopters." One guy shot at a helicopter, the helicopter naturally returned fire and killed the guy. They made up a story about him being killed in action against the Viet Cong, and somewhere in Colorado this guy is memorialized as a hero.

[Psychonaut]

Massive substance abuse. My dad complains about drunks, but then he thinks anyone who drinks a beer is a drunk, so who knows. Others talk about astronomical heroin use.

I didn't even think about that angle, but if it's a problem now (which it definitely is), I can hardly imagine how much worse it would be in a conscription force.

[Eldritch]

Thread merged with an earlier similar one.

[Cedric]

Absolutely. I really dont see the problem in enrolling 16-18 year olds into some kind of military college where their day is split between studying/classes and then military training. That way you have a greater skilled work force, more national pride and a well trained army fit for service in future emergency situations.

[Rachel]

i am not sure about military service,i dont really understand how it works, excatly i understand that you get called, but i wonder if you get a say in which branch you go into and what your job series is, cause if i had a choice for what branch and what job series i would pick navy and a nurse ( as mentioned in another thread)

However i do think that teenagers and the unemployeed should e drafted for volunteer service, expose them to various different feilds, have them work with Non profits and emergency service groups. maybe in exchange for long term volunteer work, dormitory buildings could be built to accomidate people who volunteered for thier country for two years.