Conscription - Draft

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #171327 by
Replied by on topic Conscription - Draft
What about service that has nothing to do with fighting? Like, a mandatory boot camp?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #171332 by Cyan Sarden
Replied by Cyan Sarden on topic Conscription - Draft

Cabur Senaar wrote: Perhaps something closer to the National Guard. They do policing actions, but also disaster response and things like that.

I am not 100% sure how I feel about this, but I can see the value of conscripted service to a reasonable nation.


We've been having this discussion in Switzerland for many years. As you all know, Switzerland's neutral and as such not involved in (many) conflicts. The army is there to defend the country. The problem is that there's a general lack of enemies here in Europe (this is not a complaint, obviously :-) so the question here over the last few years has been whether to reform and unify service. Right now, we have the armed forces, we have the civil protection agency (our FEMA equivalent) and we have civil service (which is something you can do if you somehow manage to get out of army service - not an easy thing to achieve).

Conscription is only for men and only for Swiss citizens. In my opinion, a generalised service should be for everyone. Obviously, it shouldn't be as long as our army service now (which is 19 weeks of boot camp, followed by 10-12 years of repetition courses, which last anywhere from 2 to 10 weeks, depending on your rank and function).

However, we've repeatedly voted on this and a majority of the population wants to keep the army (which costs us about 5.3 billion $ per year). The army has no real purpose here - it's not a deterrence, it's not typically used for disaster management (unless in the very rare occasions when the civil protection agency can't handle things anymore), international involvement is limited. But every year, between 10 and 15k men have to join, are turned into fighting machines and are then sent home again, without ever seeing a real purpose. Plus every year people die in the army, mainly from sickness (army barracks are a nice breeding / spreading ground for meningitis etc.) and in accidents. I don't believe anyone has been killed in action since WW2, where sometimes people got shot at border crossings or when the US accidentally bombed the city of Schaffhausen in WW2 when bomber pilots thought they'd already reached Germany.

Now the question of a "reasonable nation": I don't know if any nation is "reasonable". Most nations make sense to themselves, but not to others, if you know what I mean.

Do not look for happiness outside yourself. The awakened seek happiness inside.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Cyan Sarden.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #171333 by
Replied by on topic Conscription - Draft

Connor L. wrote: What about service that has nothing to do with fighting? Like, a mandatory boot camp?


Personally I disagree. It seems a bit like control to me. I'm always in favour of free thought rather than conformity. I'm too old now, but if I had been draughted into any thing against my will I would have refused to co-operate.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #171334 by steamboat28
Replied by steamboat28 on topic Conscription - Draft

Ecthalion wrote: Personally I disagree. It seems a bit like control to me. I'm always in favour of free thought rather than conformity. I'm too old now, but if I had been draughted into any thing against my will I would have refused to co-operate.


Being as far out of my years of teen angst as I am, I am going to admit here that a certain amount of conformity is not only beneficial, but necessary to an ordered society. Free thought is nice, but without at least some conformity, civilization descends into anarchy. An anarchy which sees needs unmet, and which will, eventually, turn back into order via conformity.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #171337 by Cyan Sarden
Replied by Cyan Sarden on topic Conscription - Draft

steamboat28 wrote: Being as far out of my years of teen angst as I am, I am going to admit here that a certain amount of conformity is not only beneficial, but necessary to an ordered society. Free thought is nice, but without at least some conformity, civilization descends into anarchy. An anarchy which sees needs unmet, and which will, eventually, turn back into order via conformity.


Depends on the type of service. I'd say that it won't hurt anyone to do a few weeks of community service. Not as punishment, but perhaps as a rite of initiation. Lots of young people don't have any connection to their community. They know their parents, their teachers and their friends (the latter perhaps only through Whatsapp) but they don't know what to dedicate their lives to.

Do not look for happiness outside yourself. The awakened seek happiness inside.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #171343 by
Replied by on topic Conscription - Draft

steamboat28 wrote: a certain amount of conformity is not only beneficial, but necessary to an ordered society. Free thought is nice, but without at least some conformity, civilization descends into anarchy. An anarchy which sees needs unmet, and which will, eventually, turn back into order via conformity.


I see your point - a modicum of conformity is needed, just a tad.

Without free-thought though we'd have made no progress at all. But this thread is going off subject...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #171422 by
Replied by on topic Re:Conscription - Draft

Edan wrote: I'd rather go to prison than serve in a military that fights wars I don't believe in.


I am absolutely against anyone else other than me dictating anything about my personal life. I can be convinced to do something, but if I do it it is because I choose to do it. As such if I was conscripted I am as likely to refuse participation on philosophical grounds as I am on ethical grounds. I would have to be convinced that fighting was the right thing to do, and if I wasn't then I would probably complete the training (since that would probably be actually quite valuable regardless) but refuse active duty.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #171429 by Wescli Wardest
Replied by Wescli Wardest on topic Conscription - Draft
I used to think that every male should join and serve in a branch of the military once entering adulthood. After being in the Service and understanding what it is we do and why… I only want those there with me I can count on and want to be there. Other likeminded people that you can count on and trust.

There are those that are willing to set aside their own believes or feelings and swear to do what is necessary to defend our way or life and country. And that means following what the people we elected decide is in our countries best interest. And following the design of the men and women that came before you and worked their way up to being your superior.

Most of the time these are good people but like with anything, some not so good ones get through the cracks rather they just be bad seeds or overzealous.

The long and the short of it is, a conscript Army, as used by the US in the past, is part of a national mobilization. What that means is that the Sh*t has hit the fan and we need warm bodies. But these are not always the people you want protecting your interests as a lot off the time they don't want to be there. Nor do they have the desire to serve and/or follow orders. IE: they will get you killed.

Monastic Order of Knights
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28, Cyan Sarden

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #171445 by Reacher
Replied by Reacher on topic Conscription - Draft
I am glad Master Wescli got here before I did.

The bottom line is this: If you don't want to be here, the only person who wants you here less...is me. Unless, perhaps, you consider my wife...my children, or my parents. They might not want you there a little more. Other willing soldiers will likely equal my sentiment. If you're on my left or right, it is almost certainly extreme circumstance that brought you here. As Wescli noted - national mobilization...a situation so dire that the federal government has seen fit to reach into civil society and take control of selecting men for service. It is unable to afford contractors for support purposes and enablers. It needs bodies to fill those roles. As a professional soldier, that is certainly a situation I want to avoid. Governments who invoke the draft UNDERSTAND what they're getting, and often as not lack the systems and capabilities to train and equip these men for war - at least to the same degree as their regulars. They are not going to invest in you any more than they absolutely have to in order to keep you alive and accomplish their aim. Yes, there are support roles out there, but many of the more technical roles require a LOT of additional training and investment...investment the government won't make because of circumstance and practicality. Time is a factor, and so is retention. As soon as the crisis is resolved, the vast majority of whatever the government invested in training will dissolve. If they are already making the call to draft, practicality has already far outweighed idealism - they need bodies to turn knobs or take hits. Again, that's a situation most want to avoid.

Conscription works to varying degrees depending on how a military is designed to run, as well. Some militaries are very officer-centric. Enlisted men - including senior enlisted men - do not receive near the focus, trust, or investment that officers do. Men do what they're told, are not given much reason for what they do, and are expected to accept and comply. Here in the US we recognize that as the old Soviet dynamic, though it spans much further back than that. It works well in some cultures, and less so in others. I have worked with many militaries like this, including those still influenced by the echoes of the USSR. Conscription works a bit more seamlessly in this scenario - the gap in capability between regular and conscript is not that vast.

In other armies, non-commissioned officers play a much more central role - their experience and capability serve as the backbone to their militaries, and receive a great deal of trust and responsibility in their duties. Officers are tasked with providing 'vision' for their missions - visualizing generally what an operation looks like, describing its key points, and directing the planning. He makes sure he and his subordinates UNDERSTAND why they're doing what they're doing, and have a sense of the big picture. A good officer in this type of military culture will trust his enlisted men to leverage their experience and training to come up with the specifics of execution on the ground. If they understand the big picture well enough, they'll deliver. It's amazing what guys come up with if you give them a left and right limit without restricting them needlessly in this case. The overall goal here is decentralization - if central command goes down, subordinates can perform without orders because they know what needs to happen and will still execute. Conscription is riskier in this military culture because commanders place a great deal of trust and responsibility on the shoulders of the enlisted man. The assumption they make is that his or her skill, competency, and experience are all equal to that responsibility.

A conscript leaves a big, ominous, dangerous question mark. I don't begrudge him his presence there, but I'd much rather have a professionally trained warfighter working with me.

I'll leave conscripts in the 'last resort' column.

There are plenty of question marks and dangers out there already.

Jedi Knight

The self-confidence of the warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and calls that humbleness. The average man is hooked to his fellow men, while the warrior is hooked only to infinity.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Reacher. Reason: typo
The following user(s) said Thank You: , steamboat28, Wescli Wardest, Brenna

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #171449 by Reacher
Replied by Reacher on topic Re:Conscription - Draft

Akkarin wrote: I would probably complete the training (since that would probably be actually quite valuable regardless) but refuse active duty.


Give that thought some additional consideration. You're right. The training IS valuable. It is an investment of time and resources - likely that are already strained. Feel free to conscientiously object, leave, go to jail on moral and philosophical grounds...but the training you're given is meant to defend your people. It isn't about you or the skills you will gain. If the draft comes down in the US or UK...something terrible has happened and a reasonably capable soldier is direly needed - not weeks of training and sizable funds that have absconded from fulfilling its in extremis purpose.

Those who ask "What do I stand to lose or gain from conscription?" are asking the wrong question. Consider your focus.

Jedi Knight

The self-confidence of the warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and calls that humbleness. The average man is hooked to his fellow men, while the warrior is hooked only to infinity.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Reacher.
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28, Wescli Wardest, Brenna

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi