Conscription - Draft

Reacher wrote:

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.

That may be true for the U.S. or the UK, but almost half of the countries in the world have conscription without being at war. That is: they don't have professional armies and most of the people, including the officers (who, in the case of Switzerland, are often forced to become officers), don't want to be there.

That is true. Many countries have conscripted home defense forces acting in more of a police role, or alternative services. My point is that if one disagrees with the concept, that's fine. Disagree with the concept fully...not just the part where you make good on the government's investment.

I have always said I thought two years of service would be excellent for majority of 18 year olds today. Most have no idea what the real world is about and thought it would be a good building block for a lot of people.

I had never thought about the comments of people not wanting to join and how you in the military wouldn't want them in beside you. Thank you for saying that, I had never considered that. I'm from a military family, and even tried to join myself but was denied due to too many bonks on the head. Seriously it was because of my extensive injuries by the time I was 18.

So perhaps instead something like the CC? Places where people would be of value, help our communities and grow themselves, take pride in their area, and their country and learn to value everything around them, just not bitch on Facebook all day.

Thank you for a great discussion, it has been eye opening.

Reacher wrote: 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.

If the situation was truly dire then it would be easy to convince me to perform active service.

But what if the value of fighting that particular war was murky and doubtful? "What does the country/society stand to lose or gain from conscription?"

World War One and Two are good examples, World War One was a ridiculous war (even when ignoring the terrible death tolls), however World War Two was under entirely different circumstances and in my mind was justified.

Akkarin wrote:
If the situation was truly dire then it would be easy to convince me to perform active service.

But what if the value of fighting that particular war was murky and doubtful? "What does the country/society stand to lose or gain from conscription?"

World War One and Two are good examples, World War One was a ridiculous war (even when ignoring the terrible death tolls), however World War Two was under entirely different circumstances and in my mind was justified.

I am not learned enough to discern the differences between what you may consider 'dire', and what your country does. Nor am I here to justify any nation's use of conscription in the past - including my own's use of the draft in history. Plenty of US citizens weren't easy to convince to perform active service during the Vietnam Conflict, even though the government decided that the situation was dire enough to call on the draft.

My point is that if one enters service as a trainee for the purposes of gaining valuable skills and then refuses active service, he isn't conscientiously objecting on moral or philosophical grounds...he's stealing. Time, money, and resources. Object as you will against what you consider an unjust scenario, but do it from the outset - not after you already have the benefit of invested training.

I think a lot of people could benefit from the military style of doing things... But that's it. I think the only correct way of doing it would be to integrate it to the national curriculum. Have it on base with mixed studies/service...

Reacher wrote: My point is that if one enters service as a trainee for the purposes of gaining valuable skills and then refuses active service, he isn't conscientiously objecting on moral or philosophical grounds...he's stealing. Time, money, and resources. Object as you will against what you consider an unjust scenario, but do it from the outset - not after you already have the benefit of invested training.

I have to agree completely here. I really liked the benefits that military service (especially the specific position they were asking me to fill) would've given [literally things i would give up nearly anything for, now], but I was not in a position to make the commitment necessary to compensate them for the time and the training they offered. I would still do ridiculous amounts of things to gain those benefits, but it's too late in my life to take them up on the offer, now that I could "afford" to.

In addition, volunteer service in the U.S. begins with a contract; you agree to work so long in exchange for a salary, training, and the lifetime's worth of benefits that come with service. In conscription, the contract is different--you signed it when you registered to vote. That's what you get in exchange for conscription. You still get money, training, and the lifetime's worth of benefits that come with being a veteran, but you've already been using the right to vote whether you've voted or not.

Conscription in the U.S. hasn't happened since the 70's, but the agreement for men is still "Sign up for the draft pool just in case, or you don't have a say in how the country is run."

steamboat28 wrote: Conscription in the U.S. hasn't happened since the 70's, but the agreement for men is still "Sign up for the draft pool just in case, or you don't have a say in how the country is run."

Thank goodness that things are different over here.

If one is only allowed to vote to get rid of a government one disagrees with if one fights a war for them which one also disagrees with then it's a rum do.

Ecthalion wrote: If one is only allowed to vote to get rid of a government one disagrees with if one fights a war for them which one also disagrees with then it's a rum do.

I can see why it might appear so. Genuinely, I can. But, again, I'm a tribal sort of guy; I don't think it's unreasonable to ask folks to fight for the defense of their tribe, their tribe's land, or their tribe's way of life. I'm glad that the US has had an all-volunteer military for this last set of conflicts, because I don't necessarily feel that those conflicts have always been about that defense, but I can definitely still understand it.

Reacher wrote: I am not learned enough to discern the differences between what you may consider 'dire', and what your country does. Nor am I here to justify any nation's use of conscription in the past - including my own's use of the draft in history. Plenty of US citizens weren't easy to convince to perform active service during the Vietnam Conflict, even though the government decided that the situation was dire enough to call on the draft.

My point is that if one enters service as a trainee for the purposes of gaining valuable skills and then refuses active service, he isn't conscientiously objecting on moral or philosophical grounds...he's stealing. Time, money, and resources. Object as you will against what you consider an unjust scenario, but do it from the outset - not after you already have the benefit of invested training.

I don't know myself what constitutes "dire" or not, I wouldn't ever know until the time came to make the decision.

Well I consider conscription a form of stealing... Stealing myself away from my life, and if I was going to refuse service and had two options "Spend the entire war in prison" or "Spend less time in prison by performing non-objectionable duties for a time (boot camp)" then I would choose the option where I spent less overall time in prison. Perhaps that's stealing, but my conscience is clear.

Steam, I am deeply skeptical about a social contract I have never signed, but am expected to fulfill the obligations of. But why is this working only one way? If we are all members of society then why is it that ALL citizens must submit to society's call to war, but not ALL citizens must submit to society's call to peace?

If people love their society and their country, then shouldn't they love the many myriad different views held within that country?

As the saying goes: "War is young men dying for old men's greed" and again, if that were not the case then it should be easy to convince otherwise.