Should western countries adopt mandatory military service?

Belgarion · Jun 26, 2012

Cavanboy said:
ha, thats funny because i do, why do you perceive that i do not?

Because of your simplistic and naive approach to national service.

Military service is a unique occupation that is not suitable for many, if not most, people. A volunteer has given at least some thought to their reasons for joining and the possible consequences of their choice. He or she has accepted this of their own free will and will have the motivation to do the best they can for the time they are serving.

A conscript is one who has not been motivated to seek a military career. He or she is most likely resentful of the intrusion of military service into their lives and careers, and in many cases will do the absolute minimum to get through their period of service and will require more supervision to ensure that even the minimum standards are met. These people are bad for morale and unit cohesion.

Even if the conscript is willing to accept their period of service, by the time they have reached a level of competence to be useful they are due for discharge and the value of all their training is lost. In short, they are not value for money. The argument that these people could be recalled at a moments notice is a fallacy, as the skills they have acquired need constant practice to keep them viable.

At least one poster has called those who refuse conscription traitors. This too is a simplistic and naive approach. Many who refuse peacetime conscription or conscription to serve in some overseas conflict like Vietnam or Afghanistan would likely volunteer if they perceived their homeland to be threatened.

I would take 50 well trained and motivated volunteers over 100 unwilling conscripts any day.

irishcrusader95 · Jun 26, 2012

yet is it right to say that all concepts are unwilling and will do the bare minimum with no enthusiasm. one the conscript is ingrained with unit cohesion and a sense of duty and comradeship he can be molded to be a great soldier. look at germany in WW2 their whole army was effectively a conscript one and they often did very well once the proper unit cohesion had been ingrained which makes them fight not so much for their country but for their friends and that is all the motivation a soldier really needs in order to do well.

Lokayata · Jun 26, 2012

KGB said:
So, you suggest someone else to defend your individual liberties?

Mandatory military service usually doesn't entail defending the country (I'm talking about military service as separate from drafting in war time, as some countries do drafts but not mandatory service). Most of the time you're just called up to waste a year or so of your life training to do something you don't care about or want to do.

smellincoffee · Jun 26, 2012

I would support conscription into some National Service-type institution: not everyone would need join the military, but they could serve in areas devoted to the public good, like the old CCC or WPA work. Kids today need to learn that they aren't the little precious end-all be-alls of the universe.

Belgarion · Jun 26, 2012

irishcrusader95 said:
yet is it right to say that all concepts are unwilling and will do the bare minimum with no enthusiasm. one the conscript is ingrained with unit cohesion and a sense of duty and comradeship he can be molded to be a great soldier. look at germany in WW2 their whole army was effectively a conscript one and they often did very well once the proper unit cohesion had been ingrained which makes them fight not so much for their country but for their friends and that is all the motivation a soldier really needs in order to do well.

No, not all conscripts will be problem children and many, if not most, will eventually fit in well with their volunteer comrades. However those that do not can be a disruptive influence out of proportion to their numbers. I see this as more of a problem with a peacetime draft where the conscript can see no point to his service. In wartime where there is percieved to be a genuine threat to the country many will either volunteer anyway or at least not be resistant to the idea of conscription.

Cavanboy · Jun 27, 2012

Belgarion said:
Because of your simplistic and naive approach to national service.

Military service is a unique occupation that is not suitable for many, if not most, people. A volunteer has given at least some thought to their reasons for joining and the possible consequences of their choice. He or she has accepted this of their own free will and will have the motivation to do the best they can for the time they are serving.

A conscript is one who has not been motivated to seek a military career. He or she is most likely resentful of the intrusion of military service into their lives and careers, and in many cases will do the absolute minimum to get through their period of service and will require more supervision to ensure that even the minimum standards are met. These people are bad for morale and unit cohesion.

Even if the conscript is willing to accept their period of service, by the time they have reached a level of competence to be useful they are due for discharge and the value of all their training is lost. In short, they are not value for money. The argument that these people could be recalled at a moments notice is a fallacy, as the skills they have acquired need constant practice to keep them viable.

At least one poster has called those who refuse conscription traitors. This too is a simplistic and naive approach. Many who refuse peacetime conscription or conscription to serve in some overseas conflict like Vietnam or Afghanistan would likely volunteer if they perceived their homeland to be threatened.

I would take 50 well trained and motivated volunteers over 100 unwilling conscripts any day.

Ha, simplistic and naive approach, yoi my friend are over contemplating it and looking at the worst case scenarios, you cannot say 50 WELL TRAINED and motivated volunteers over 100 unwilling conscripts, look at the way you worded it, of course it sounds silly that way but not all conscripts are unwilling and they are infact trained, so yes, i would take 100 TRAINED conscripts over 50 trained volounteers.

Bish · Jun 27, 2012

Cavanboy said:
Ha, simplistic and naive approach, yoi my friend are over contemplating it and looking at the worst case scenarios, you cannot say 50 WELL TRAINED and motivated volunteers over 100 unwilling conscripts, look at the way you worded it, of course it sounds silly that way but not all conscripts are unwilling and they are infact trained, so yes, i would take 100 TRAINED conscripts over 50 trained volounteers.

Clearly i am missing the obvious, cause it looks like he worded it just fine to me.

The only point i would disagree on is that i would take 10 volunteers over a 100 conscripts.

Of course, this only applies in times such as we have now. If a large scale war broke out, WW2 style, then we need as much cannon fodder as we can get.

But in the current situation, we don't. I don't even like the ida of rewduceing the isze of the regular army and relying more on part timers.

Cavanboy · Jun 27, 2012

The OP was not about wartime conscription btw, it was about peace time military service like swiss or austrian models. Not leaving the country to fight in some war, see how you always take it to worst case scenario.

Bish · Jun 27, 2012

Cavanboy said:
The OP was not about wartime conscription btw, it was about peace time military service like swiss or austrian models. Not leaving the country to fight in some war, see how you always take it to worst case scenario.

The OP doesn't specify. And all i did was make a distinction between current times and the worse case scenario, because there is a difference.

Grimald · Jun 27, 2012

Currently, Western countries are rather abolishing mandatory military service than introducing it. At least in Western, Southern and Central Europe, mandatory military service appears to be an outdated model:

Country, year abolished or suspended

United Kingdom 1961
Belgium 1995
Netherlands 1997
France 2001
Spain 2001
Hungary 2004
Italy 2005
Poland 2010
Sweden 2010
Germany 2011

In Austria, the suspension of mandatory military service is being discussed, and my prediction is that Austria will follow Germany's example. The Swiss, being an exception in many respects, may however keep their militia system for a while.

Larrey · Jun 27, 2012

Brisieis said:
Ok, then let us be realistic here now...

Who would want to go into Syria now by force because we were told to do so?

Conscript armies tend to be built by smaller nation, who put them together for invasion defense. If there's a need for overseas missions, you ask for volunteers. THEN it's a boon if your male population by and large have been through military training. Amps up the selection base, provides you a rough guide to who's actually capable, and cuts down on basic training for the mission.

Then it also largely depends on what kind of foreign policy your nation is running. What it is the armed forces are used for... Does it do wars of aggression or not?

KGB · Jun 27, 2012

Lokayata said:
Mandatory military service usually doesn't entail defending the country (I'm talking about military service as separate from drafting in war time, as some countries do drafts but not mandatory service). Most of the time you're just called up to waste a year or so of your life training to do something you don't care about or want to do.

You do not waste time!

You learn so much, first of all. Secondly, a country could not have drafting in wartime, if has not mandatory service.
Hm, well. I was a tank driver. Believe me, I would have never driven a tank, if not taken in the army. As a matter of fact, it was quite a good experience, despite other things.

Military is a good school

Tuatha De Danann · Jun 27, 2012

KGB said:
Interesting idea. OK, but when you have on your counterpart side a large army?

See what happened with Georgia and Russia in their Abhasia conflict. I am afraid Georgian professional army failed too fast.

That's the point. No country should have a large army. I understand that some people want to have an army, but it should be small and only for defense purposes.

KGB · Jun 27, 2012

Larrey said:
Conscript armies tend to be built by smaller nation, who put them together for invasion defense. If there's a need for overseas missions, you ask for volunteers. THEN it's a boon if your male population by and large have been through military training. Amps up the selection base, provides you a rough guide to who's actually capable, and cuts down on basic training for the mission.

Then it also largely depends on what kind of foreign policy your nation is running. What it is the armed forces are used for... Does it do wars of aggression or not?

Yes, that`s right. You need professionals for missions. But, except the foreign policy, there is one more factor - each country is a potential object of aggression or of a full military danger. Than you need professionals and conscripts together.

Bish · Jun 27, 2012

Tuatha De Danann said:
That's the point. No country should have a large army. I understand that some people want to have an army, but it should be small and only for defense purposes.

Thats all well and good until someone with a big army comes along and roles right over you.

KGB · Jun 27, 2012

Tuatha De Danann said:
That's the point. No country should have a large army. I understand that some people want to have an army, but it should be small and only for defense purposes.

Yes but this is a dream. The real politics would never allow that, because there is always one superpower or regional power with large army.

And besides, conscription makes the nation stronger.

(At least saves money for boyscout camps )))))) )

KGB · Jun 27, 2012

Bish said:
Thats all well and good until someone with a big army comes along and roles right over you.

Correct. And you cannot just call the nation to come and fight. To build an army you need time, resources and military tradition. Those are precious things.

Tuatha De Danann · Jun 27, 2012

KGB said:
And besides, conscription makes the nation stronger. (At least saves money for boyscout camps )))))) )

Examples of Countries that had conscription:
1. The Britsh Empire- Country went bankrupt, sold off it's empire, abondoned conscription.
2. France- Country went bankrupt, sold off it's empire, abondoned conscription
3. USSR- Country went bankrupt, sold off it's empire, abondoned conscription.
You get the picture.

Examples of Countires that currently have conscription:
1. North Korea
2. Libya
3. Syria
The less said about those countries, the better.

KGB · Jun 27, 2012

Belgarion said:
Because of your simplistic and naive approach to national service.

Military service is a unique occupation that is not suitable for many, if not most, people. A volunteer has given at least some thought to their reasons for joining and the possible consequences of their choice. He or she has accepted this of their own free will and will have the motivation to do the best they can for the time they are serving.

A conscript is one who has not been motivated to seek a military career. He or she is most likely resentful of the intrusion of military service into their lives and careers, and in many cases will do the absolute minimum to get through their period of service and will require more supervision to ensure that even the minimum standards are met. These people are bad for morale and unit cohesion.

Even if the conscript is willing to accept their period of service, by the time they have reached a level of competence to be useful they are due for discharge and the value of all their training is lost. In short, they are not value for money. The argument that these people could be recalled at a moments notice is a fallacy, as the skills they have acquired need constant practice to keep them viable.

At least one poster has called those who refuse conscription traitors. This too is a simplistic and naive approach. Many who refuse peacetime conscription or conscription to serve in some overseas conflict like Vietnam or Afghanistan would likely volunteer if they perceived their homeland to be threatened.

I would take 50 well trained and motivated volunteers over 100 unwilling conscripts any day.

Well not exactly. Conscripts are not unwilling ppl, not at all. See the WWII. Were soldiers unwilling?

No one, I mean no one, wants wars. Including and maybe most of the military pepole. But provided that war is inevitable, nations created their military tradition, and it was mostly conscript. Predominantly conscript in history. There is an entire military culture and even pride.

I can tell you, that if you take 30 guys (I have never seen a .... in the army in my time, so I cannot say for a ......

) to a mandatory service, you will have 5-6 very fit to be excellent soldiers, 5-6, who will be unwilling or psychology not fit for this. The rest will follow the situation - if the training is good, and if the motivation is patriotic, they will join the first 5-6

Bish · Jun 27, 2012

KGB said:
Correct. And you cannot just call the nation to come and fight. To build an army you need time, resources and military tradition. Those are precious things.

Not nessacerily. In both world wars Britain called up civilians to join the army. It all depends on the motivation and how they are trained. And the latter at least can be down to your professinal army.

This may not suit all countries, but it seem to suit us.

Search

Search

Should western countries adopt mandatory military service?

Belgarion

irishcrusader95

Lokayata

smellincoffee

Belgarion

Cavanboy

Bish

Cavanboy

Bish

Grimald

Larrey

KGB

Tuatha De Danann

KGB

Bish

KGB

KGB

Tuatha De Danann

KGB

Bish

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions