june gloom on 29/10/2009 at 16:53
Quote Posted by the_grip
I don't know any Americans who are in favor of compulsory military service, and I live in a relatively conservative area of the country. Most people have a bad taste left over from the draft in the Vietnam War days.
This. Nobody sane really wants compulsory military service. Our military is all-volunteer because it means the people in the army
wanted to be- and that makes more efficient soldiers.
demagogue on 29/10/2009 at 17:19
It also makes them tend to be either overly aggressive in personality or needy for work & less educated ... both of which invite the dumb errors you read about, too much risk-taking, and doesn't help interacting with the overseas population. A compulsory service I'd imagine might temper that, it might not be so bad for professionalism, and your service would be more representative of your general population. But then I guess their enthusiasm would plunge if it was anything less than WWII-level circumstances, and it's hard to get good things out of people that would honestly rather be somewhere else.
But anyway, it's an academic question for the US because it would never get support short of full-scale alien invasion.
Aerothorn on 29/10/2009 at 17:20
Quote Posted by henke
It was a hypothetical example.
Quote Posted by henke
However, in order to ensure the freedom of future generations we must keep on sacrificing a year, or half a year of our lives to keep an army ready to mobilize in order to keep potential invaders at bay.
These two sentences do not agree with eachother. Either you think there is a real possibility of invasion or you don't. If you're not speaking in fanciful hypotheticals, my questions remains valid. If you are, then you can't keep using the "DEFEND THE HOMELAND" argument.
Ostriig on 29/10/2009 at 17:27
Sorry to hear about it dude, sucks. Compulsory service is a feudal system with little justification or application in a modern, functional country, though, unfortunately, there's still a few of them in Europe where it's practiced. Should be phased out completely soon enough, hopefully.
I got lucky on this one, I was the first or second generation not to face incorporation. They just "recruited" us, meaning we had to go in for physical and psychological/psychiatrical evaluation for the Army's records, but we wouldn't have gotten incorporated. Before that, service was one year regular right after highschool (age 18-19), or six months' officers' school after University if you got in.
Quote Posted by henke
We can all claim it's our human right not to have to take army service and then when we get invaded what happens to the rights we've set for ourselves? Human rights is something that you actively need to work for and, if need be, fight to protect.
I guess all those countries that don't rely on conscription are up shit creek once Ivan puts the vodka down. Oh, wait, they have professional armies payed for by citizens' taxes. As for efficiency, career military make far more effective soldiers than conscripts in any way you look at it, the only only shortcoming is that they're more expensive.
Edit: Okay, I had managed to miss the fact that you're not in NATO, my mistake, and I'll admit that puts a bit of a different light on the desire to maintain a large reservist force. However, I can't help but still find it questionable whether you couldn't afford a professional force to the same effect, even if not the same numbers.
TBE on 29/10/2009 at 17:31
Aerothorn -> They don't expect to be invaded BECAUSE they have an army and an defense alliance with other nations. A nation that doesn't create a national defense because they don't expect to be invaded can probably be invaded by a tyrant with an army.
Aerothorn on 29/10/2009 at 17:32
To be fair, "more expensive" can become REALLY, REALLY expensive. Compare the percent of the GDP the USA spends on the military to Finland's. Admittedly, that has more to do with an incredibly powerful military industrial complex than actual necessity, but it does open the system up to that kind of abuse.
the_grip on 29/10/2009 at 17:41
speaking of, when is the US going to get all the troops out of South Korea... and elsewhere. $$
Kuuso on 29/10/2009 at 18:43
Just throwing this out here: Finland's army is the third most expensive army in Europe, if the lost taxes and work the soldiers would have made is counted in. The cheapness of compulsory service is a myth that is used commonly to promote it. (counted in % of GDP obviously)
The most expensive army is in Greece, which also has compulsory service. UK is the second.
(
http://www.stat.fi/artikkelit/2007/art_2007-06-01_005.html?s=0) (Finnish only, sorry)
Quote Posted by henke
I'm fuzzy on the terminology so maybe it's a privilege and not a right. But regardless I think you(and everyone else) got my point: you can't take human rights for granted.
It was a hypothetical example.
It was worth it so we can go on living free. However, in order to ensure the freedom of future generations we must keep on sacrificing a year, or half a year of our lives to keep an army ready to mobilize in order to keep potential invaders at bay. We have a pretty good thing going on here in Finland so I don't think that's an unreasonable sacrifice. You say we could keep a just as effective army by converting to a volunteer system but I think that's wishful thinking.
I see your point, but in the current situation, we do not have threats. The only possibility for Russia (and face it, it is the only even potential threat) invading us in a case of World War 3, which would mean we're fucked nonetheless. Finland doesn't have any chance against Russia, they far more superior air-control, meaning they could bomb the fuck out of Helsinki, meaning the loss of our main electricity supply. Finnish air forces have been estimated of holding the Finn airspace for 1,5 minutes in case of Russian attack. GG, I'd say.
A more likely problem from Russia is, if the country breaks down, but we do not need a compulsory army service to deal with problems like that.
Aerothorn on 29/10/2009 at 18:58
Quote Posted by the_grip
speaking of, when is the US going to get all the troops out of South Korea... and elsewhere. $$
When finances enter into the military debate. Which is to say, not anytime soon.
Whenever people debate the ethics of a military question in the USA, the cost of the action is always ignored in mainstream debate - it's all about whether it's the "right thing to do." I guess because people are really bad with finances, or something. Cause lemme tell you, even if you thought invading Iraq was swell, I don't really see how you justify the cost.
Meanwhile, it has just been reported that the USA could build 20 schools for the cost of every soldier they send to Afghanistan. Great.
the_grip on 29/10/2009 at 18:58
Kuuso, it is likely someone somewhere is making money on this. That's why it still exists.
