Conscription should be abolished

[Breccia]

If a country is about to be attacked or overrun by a strong threat, wouldn't it make the most sense to have organized resistance as opposed to disorganized resistance?

- - - Updated - - -

Imagine if America or Canada had a 4 year civil service program where you could get all your education for free, be paid to do it, and serve at the same time. Win/Win/Win

I'm...not sure that's true. There are about 20 million college students in the US right now, a number that dwarfs the size of our active duty military by about an order of magnitude. Not only do I worry about how such a force would be trained, equipped, housed and mobilized, I'm worried what might happen when our leaders realize they have that many soldiers at any time. That sounds like an invitation to get involved anywhere, anytime, knowing you had the manpower to do so.

[Polybius]

I disagree. It teaches them responsibility/teamwork/discipline and in a lot of cases can also teach them a trade. I joined the Army 2 months after I turned 17 and served 3 years. Came from a very poor family of migrant workers ( yes, they do exist in the US ). It was one of the best decisions in my life. I think everyone ( healthy ) should serve 2 years of mandatory military service after they finish school.

No. /10char

[Deleted]

Actually.. I agree with the OP. Conscription is slavery and its sexist.

Even if its a small country that cant otherwise have a large enough paid army, I think it should still not force anyone, men or women into service cause lets face it. You can scare people into slavery with a bigger punishment but when it hits the fan, those who were forced into it against their will would probably just flee the country anyway. Its a waste of taxpayers money to train and feed them during the basic training.

[Sunseeker]

Military enhances education for those that struggle with it. I am speaking from person experience I would not of accomplished as much as I did in the standard system.

It also starts them out in life with steady pay rather then steadily increasing debt.
(I do realize that doesn't hold for everyone)

So some people need a more structured environment than others. Okay, that just means a one-size-fits-all education system is problematic. This isn't a new realization, we need vastly more diversity in methods of teaching in America (can't speak for the rest of the world). The tradeoff of "go fight and kill people and get paid and educated" isn't worth it for some people. Speaking from the perspective of a nation with people almost perpetually deployed in some conflict somewhere, I'm honestly not willing to do that, or even support that, simply to get paid while I get educated. There needs to be an option for national service of some sort. I'd dig ditches and build highways over risking being deployed into some foreign conflict in a country who's name I can't spell.

[Stacyrect]

If a country is about to be attacked or overrun by a strong threat, wouldn't it make the most sense to have organized resistance as opposed to disorganized resistance?

- - - Updated - - -



I'm...not sure that's true. There are about 20 million college students in the US right now, a number that dwarfs the size of our active duty military by about an order of magnitude. Not only do I worry about how such a force would be trained, equipped, housed and mobilized, I'm worried what might happen when our leaders realize they have that many soldiers at any time. That sounds like an invitation to get involved anywhere, anytime, knowing you had the manpower to do so.

We already have a draft system in place, so technically speaking the manpower is already there. Worries are unfounded as we've already accepted the invitation a long time ago to get involved anyway. So many positive's that are being overlooked for fears of existing systems and policies already in place that we do not act upon.

- - - Updated - - -

So some people need a more structured environment than others. Okay, that just means a one-size-fits-all education system is problematic. This isn't a new realization, we need vastly more diversity in methods of teaching in America (can't speak for the rest of the world). The tradeoff of "go fight and kill people and get paid and educated" isn't worth it for some people. Speaking from the perspective of a nation with people almost perpetually deployed in some conflict somewhere, I'm honestly not willing to do that, or even support that, simply to get paid while I get educated. There needs to be an option for national service of some sort. I'd dig ditches and build highways over risking being deployed into some foreign conflict in a country who's name I can't spell.

Why couldn't digging ditchs and building highways be something you couldn't do while getting educated and being paid to do it?

[I Push Buttons]

I think conscription should exist for emergencies, like WW2, where the fate of the nation and the world are on the line.

I am also fine with it being male only. I don't think females make good infantry and that is by and large what a conscript would probably be.

I am not saying females can't be good soldiers... I think a woman could drive a vehicle, fly a plane, etc., as well as a man. I am saying an average female physically cannot lift as much, carry as much, march as long a distance, engage as well in melee, etc., to an equally trained average male.

[Talsar]

Conscription could be abolished... right up until it was needed again. At which point people would put aside morality and do what needs to be done to survive. as they always do.

[Alvito]

If nations existence is based on slave army, such nation deserves to lose the war if people dont bother to defend it otherwise.

It is part of your social contract for living there. If you aren't willing to chip in and help the ways the society has determined you should they you can't live there. By staying there you agree to do the things required to stay.

[DrStiglit]

If they didnt bother to prepare defences, they dont deserve their homes.

Everyone should have ground to air missile batteries in their yards.. Otherwise of course they don't deserve their home if they can't defend against an air strike..

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Conscription, especially when in its sexist form where only men are affected by it because of their gender, should be abolished. There are no moral grounds for such law. We dont normally expect anyone to danger their lives for someone else, but still we have this view that males are just expendable, tools for government to use when they see neccesary, even if people wouldnt believe the cause to begin with.

What do you think?

We don't have conscription in the US and maintain a very large and capable standing military. We are also a nation with over 300 million people and the world's most powerful economy. Not everyone has the luxury of size and wealth we do.

As to your specific points. We require people to endanger themselves for others all the time. Men are biologically and socially expendable and always have been. This concept is not limited to war. There is a reason we allow "women and children first," off of sinking ships. Women are biologically valuable. It is also far easier for a woman to acquire and replace a husband than it is for a husband to acquire and replace a wife. A woman's value to her mate and her offspring is completely contained within herself. She provides a man with a sexual partner and companion. She provides her children with a nurturer and a teacher. A man's value to his mate and children conversely is not contained within himself, as his value is in the resources he is able to acquire. The potential for resources still exists in his absence, she must simply attract another mate to acquire them.

Now modern conveniences have lessened the degree to which the above is true considerably, but our brains, bodies and basic social constructs are still built around this situation. Full scale war (not these little skirmishes we've been fighting recently) is an incredible upheaval and requires we revert a bit to the laws of the jungle. A population absent a significant number of males can recover very quickly. A population deficient in females may never recover at all.

[tangers58]

First off your whole "murrica" comment...fuck you. It is America not MURRICA. You know..the guys that kicked the shit out of Nazi Germany.
The topic was women in the military- nothing about civil service. Try to keep up.

That would be the Soviets and British actually... America in the world wars tends to show up near the end then declare that they won...

[Triks]

I am against mandatory service because all it does is mess with your career and short-term life plans. A professional army is always better, however, I can understand why certain countries such as Greece, Cyprus and Finland continue to employ it. I also think that people over blow the benefits of it. If you are a piece of shit before going in, you will be a piece of shit going out. Yes, discipline doesn't hurt but having it without the ability to make rational decisions based on the current situation is pointless.

I understand that such a thought process is covered in officer training and the training of actual professional soldiers but for 6 months you can't learn qualities that take years develop - it just doesn't happen like that. In reality what changes people the most is them becoming professionals in a given field and being placed in situations where they have to be accountable for their actions and where other people depend on them. If anything, you should want governments to have mandatory internships or work placements for a year or so after high school and before university/college.

[SandMax]

We don't have conscription in the US and maintain a very large and capable standing military. We are also a nation with over 300 million people and the world's most powerful economy. Not everyone has the luxury of size and wealth we do.

As to your specific points. We require people to endanger themselves for others all the time. Men are biologically and socially expendable and always have been. This concept is not limited to war. There is a reason we allow "women and children first," off of sinking ships. Women are biologically valuable. It is also far easier for a woman to acquire and replace a husband than it is for a husband to acquire and replace a wife. A woman's value to her mate and her offspring is completely contained within herself. She provides a man with a sexual partner and companion. She provides her children with a nurturer and a teacher. A man's value to his mate and children conversely is not contained within himself, as his value is in the resources he is able to acquire. The potential for resources still exists in his absence, she must simply attract another mate to acquire them.

Now modern conveniences have lessened the degree to which the above is true considerably, but our brains, bodies and basic social constructs are still built around this situation. Full scale war (not these little skirmishes we've been fighting recently) is an incredible upheaval and requires we revert a bit to the laws of the jungle. A population absent a significant number of males can recover very quickly. A population deficient in females may never recover at all.

The thing is, that in todays nations with so many people, we could easily lose alot of women and still recover quickly. But thats not even likely case, we dont lose most of soldiers anyway, and women probably wouldnt even go frontline so often as men so its nonissue alltogether.

Also, we dont usually require people to risk their lives anywhere. And even in sinking ships, women tend to die more often than men. Titanic was exception.

[Kellhound]

Conscripts are only useful against other conscripts after the professionals have been killed off. Especially most current conscripts that lack enough time in to gain sufficient skills before they are discharged.

[kail]

Military enhances education for those that struggle with it. I am speaking from person experience I would not of accomplished as much as I did in the standard system.

Good that it works for you and many others, but military service isn't for everyone. My own cousin sure as hell couldn't wait for his term to end.

Once you reach adulthood, you should be free to pursue w/e path you want. Forced enlistment to the military or any other job is unethical in my eyes. Complete opposite of freedom tbh.

[SandMax]

If conscription isnt slavery, then what is slavery?

Also the women giving birth and recovering argument doesnt hold true. Women as bottleneck only has meaning, if men commonly would impregrante multiple women but usually they only do that with one woman in their life, at most 2 for some people. So when lots of men die, it reduces the birthrates similarly if women died. Only reason why right after war people actually made more babies was not because men had multiple women to have babies with, but the government support for families and job prospects. Families had lots of kids. Without thise governmental programs the birth rates would have plummeted into oblivion. At the same time, lots of women were single because there wasnt enough young men for partners, thus not contributing to births.

So men in todays society are about just as important for the societies recovery as women.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

Hi Dr. Cox! /hug - Dr. JD Dorian

listen newbie...

[Aggrophobic]

I don't know if I'm against conscription but forcing people to fight for something when they really don't want to won't work.

[SandMax]

Conscription fills the definition of forced labour, which in turn fall under slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor

Unfree labour is a generic or collective term for those work relations, especially in modern or early modern history, in which people are employed against their will by the threat of destitution, detention, violence (including death), lawful compulsion,[1] or other extreme hardship to themselves or to members of their families.

Of course, the institutions have spesifically declared that conscription doesnt fall under "forced labour" so they can legally keep doing that.

[Ghostpanther]

Conscription fills the definition of forced labour, which in turn fall under slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor

Unfree labour is a generic or collective term for those work relations, especially in modern or early modern history, in which people are employed against their will by the threat of destitution, detention, violence (including death), lawful compulsion,[1] or other extreme hardship to themselves or to members of their families.

Of course, the institutions have spesifically declared that conscription doesnt fall under "forced labour" so they can legally keep doing that.

Using that logic, we could say forced tax payments fall under slavery. Or like here in the US, forced jury duty. You ether pay or show up at the court house or you could end up in prison. But we all know taxes and jury duty are necessary for a country/community.