Military Debate: Is Conscription Moral?

[Simonbob]

so to answer your question: Dellusion.

Sure, delusion.

But, people just doing what they're told makes them proof of the "elites" power. For most of history, having more followers is a sign of power.

We're in the bizzare situation that our leaders are looking at everybody who's following them, who mostly do what they're told, and they're saying "These guys who are in theory are my followers? I want them dead!"



Is this just more evidence for insanity from atomisation? Are they looking at the average person, and seeing them as another tribe?

Ok, it's not conscription related, but it's been bothering me.

 

[Aldarion]

Sure, delusion.

But, people just doing what they're told makes them proof of the "elites" power. For most of history, having more followers is a sign of power.

We're in the bizzare situation that our leaders are looking at everybody who's following them, who mostly do what they're told, and they're saying "These guys who are in theory are my followers? I want them dead!"



Is this just more evidence for insanity from atomisation? Are they looking at the average person, and seeing them as another tribe?

Ok, it's not conscription related, but it's been bothering me.

Problem is the very nature of modern society. In feudal society, a lord owned the land and, in practice, people on it. There was (usually) some sort of connection.

But today, wealth is transnational and disconnected from land, and so are the elites themselves. Medieval nobility often gave their wealth and their lives to defend the country and the people, even if they too often despised the common man. Today's elites see people as expendable and replaceable, and despise them far worse than medieval nobility ever did.

 

[Scottty]

What I'm seeing from the pro-conscription side boils down to: "We need conscription because people won't sign up to defend the regime unless they're forced to at gunpoint."
Maybe the problem's not the people there...

 

[Scottty]

Also, I have a suspicion that the people most keen to have the government force everyone else into the military, will often have some excuse as to why this should not apply to themselves. Just to other people.

 

[Batrix2070]

What I'm seeing from the pro-conscription side boils down to: "We need conscription because people won't sign up to defend the regime unless they're forced to at gunpoint."
Maybe the problem's not the people there...

Also, I have a suspicion that the people most keen to have the government force everyone else into the military, will often have some excuse as to why this should not apply to themselves. Just to other people.

I don't know where you got this conclusion from. I understand that you are extremely selfish that you cannot imagine voluntary support for conscription by those who will be covered by it, but the truth is that it is as real as possible. The fact that in your country for you the "regime" is untrustworthy should not be judged that in another it will be so.

Another thing is that you apparently support the voluntary destruction of the economy which, in the absence of conscription, will be forced to maintain the necessary defense forces on an occupational basis only. Well, unless it's an unusually large and wealthy economy, but that's usually the sign of a superpower state that most likely doesn't need conscription except in war with another superpower, and to blow the heads off weaker countries, professional soldiers will suffice, and even better they should be professional soldiers. That way you can separate the army from ordinary civilian life without too much trouble and the professionals won't have as much resistance in them against more wars as conscripts. The government doesn't have to convince them, they will volunteer to serve it themselves. In this way it can ignore public opposition to war more than in the case of a conscript army because the only ones who will die will be those who volunteered.

In short, if the conscript army has been downgraded by you to the level of "slaves" then the professional army can also be downgraded to the level of "mercenaries." Every stick has two ends, you can put muh "slaves"! and I can put "muh mercenaries"!

What's more, opposition to conscription can also be seen as a desire to avoid any action on behalf of the group and an attempt to force the group so that a small band of selfish people can profit without cost.

You are trying to make only others bear the costs, you yourself do not want to bear the costs, and you are surprised that as much as possible there are people willing to give something from themselves and in favor of establishing a system that makes it easier for the community to organize itself efficiently in case of emergency, without wasting time during the war.

You're operating under the assumption that your King/ society actually cares about you I almost guarantee it doesn't even know who you are and will gladly sacrifice you to save it's own... let's just say spine so the question is ultimately die on your own terms at the hands of an enemy or die on the terms of someone pretending to be a friend. Personally I choose the former.

That is to say, I can consider you an extreme cynic, a man so pessimistic that only when reality hits him in the face, in the last moments of your life, will you realize what folly you have committed.

I understand that you don't trust the draft because you consider those who run your country untrustworthy. The problem is that in doing so you are giving them full control of the army, an army that, depending on the prevailing ethos, may be people who have dedicated themselves professionally to the defense of others so that you don't have to fight. But they can also be mercenaries loyal only to their own commanders and those who pay them. If they are ordered to open fire and suppress protesting civilians then, because the professional army must form a tight-knit community that is separate from civilian life, they will do so without hesitation, because their allegiance is only to their own group.

 

[Marduk]

What I'm seeing from the pro-conscription side boils down to: "We need conscription because people won't sign up to defend the regime unless they're forced to at gunpoint."
Maybe the problem's not the people there...

No, the argument is that by the time the actual defending is needed it's already too late for them to sign up.

Also, using conscripts for "regime defense" duties specifically is how the regime gets a speedrun of 1917, so YMMV...

Also i'm absolutely not keen on it, i'm just less keen on the alternatives some countries have to maintaining a kind of military force structure allowed by conscription, with already states caveat of *which* country. For example, for a country like Portugal or Belgium conscription would be an utterly pointless milking of free labor from citizens by the government.

 

[Scottty]

I don't know where you got this conclusion from. I understand that you are extremely selfish that you cannot imagine voluntary support for conscription by those who will be covered by it, but the truth is that it is as real as possible. The fact that in your country for you the "regime" is untrustworthy should not be judged that in another it will be so.

Another thing is that you apparently support the voluntary destruction of the economy which, in the absence of conscription, will be forced to maintain the necessary defense forces on an occupational basis only. Well, unless it's an unusually large and wealthy economy, but that's usually the sign of a superpower state that most likely doesn't need conscription except in war with another superpower, and to blow the heads off weaker countries, professional soldiers will suffice, and even better they should be professional soldiers. That way you can separate the army from ordinary civilian life without too much trouble and the professionals won't have as much resistance in them against more wars as conscripts. The government doesn't have to convince them, they will volunteer to serve it themselves. In this way it can ignore public opposition to war more than in the case of a conscript army because the only ones who will die will be those who volunteered.

In short, if the conscript army has been downgraded by you to the level of "slaves" then the professional army can also be downgraded to the level of "mercenaries." Every stick has two ends, you can put muh "slaves"! and I can put "muh mercenaries"!

What's more, opposition to conscription can also be seen as a desire to avoid any action on behalf of the group and an attempt to force the group so that a small band of selfish people can profit without cost.

You are trying to make only others bear the costs, you yourself do not want to bear the costs, and you are surprised that as much as possible there are people willing to give something from themselves and in favor of establishing a system that makes it easier for the community to organize itself efficiently in case of emergency, without wasting time during the war.


That is to say, I can consider you an extreme cynic, a man so pessimistic that only when reality hits him in the face, in the last moments of your life, will you realize what folly you have committed.

I understand that you don't trust the draft because you consider those who run your country untrustworthy. The problem is that in doing so you are giving them full control of the army, an army that, depending on the prevailing ethos, may be people who have dedicated themselves professionally to the defense of others so that you don't have to fight. But they can also be mercenaries loyal only to their own commanders and those who pay them. If they are ordered to open fire and suppress protesting civilians then, because the professional army must form a tight-knit community that is separate from civilian life, they will do so without hesitation, because their allegiance is only to their own group.

That you think you know what I want or support, based only on what you find inside your own head, tells me all I need to know about how seriously to take your arguments.

 

[Batrix2070]

That you think you know what I want or support, based only on what you find inside your own head, tells me all I need to know about how seriously to take your arguments.

Man, but that's what it sounded like to me. Underneath the feigned concern for coercion, it leaks out selfishness who sound like they dare to force me to do anything. Because, after all, it's impossible that anyone who will be subject to conscription is in favor of conscription. He must be like me.

If this is not true, then I'm sorry, but as they see you so they write you. Show that it's not true and you don't jump to the conclusion that I dare to try to draw your basis from your words and that means to you that my arguments have no value.

Thus, for me so far, proves that I have hit the nail on the head of your dislike of conscription.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

What I'm seeing from the pro-conscription side boils down to: "We need conscription because people won't sign up to defend the regime unless they're forced to at gunpoint."
Maybe the problem's not the people there...

I kinda like this viewpoint. If a war is so dire, so needed, and the nation is at the brink of destruction, people will willingly join.
People defend what is theirs unless something is faulty with them.

So if they aren't fighting, they're either not defending what is theirs, or they have nothing to themselves. The first part is very apparent with globalist-type wars, but I wonder if that last part is relevant nowadays anywhere...

 

[Batrix2070]

I kinda like this viewpoint. If a war is so dire, so needed, and the nation is at the brink of destruction, people will willingly join.

But there are other reasons in conscription than just a shortage of people for the army. There is also the dissipation of the surplus, when suddenly at the last minute the conscription system is flooded with waves of volunteers, it will immediately be overloaded because, first, there will be too few people to train, because most of those who know will already be at the front, and second, there will be too few weapons, because professional armies are not famous for holding mobilization stocks and which conscript armies have.

Why? Because the conscript army on a peacetime basis is scaled down to 1/3 the volume of the professional army. The whole point of it, is to develop mobilization and fill vacancies with conscripts, much earlier trained, already in peacetime! Thanks to this, it is not necessary to cut off part of their training to the most basic skills in order for the front to get immediate replacements, because they have these skills hammered into their heads.

The problem with the national volunteer spurt, precisely lies in the fact that most often it fails to take full advantage of it, and such people will be trained much worse than conscripts. Because the trainers must immediately push them out of training after they finish the basics to make room for the next ones.

If instead, you build a system that teaches the necessary skills in peacetime. In the event of a W, such volunteers along with mobilizers will be much more useful. Because you only have to test their skills in a refresher course and, if you are building a new unit from scratch with mobilized and volunteers, lump them together. Which will take much less time than if you have to train them from scratch.

This approach, in a way, is counting on the luck and stamina of the professionals to hold the line until the new forces arrive. This approach is only viable as safe if you have a position like America did during both World Wars. In other cases, it is as in the first sentence.

Forcing countries that are, in the event of war, immediately in conflict on their territory to take this approach. This is an example, dishonesty and naiveté. A wrong approach that will get many more people killed. It would even be immoral for them to do so.


But hey! They're not being forced by force to serve in the army! After all, that's great, right?
And the fact that because of this attitude, many of them will be killed during the war is none of our business./sarcazm mode

As they say, prevention is better than cure.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

But there are other reasons in conscription than just a shortage of people for the army. There is also the dissipation of the surplus, when suddenly at the last minute the conscription system is flooded with waves of volunteers, it will immediately be overloaded because, first, there will be too few people to train, because most of those who know will already be at the front, and second, there will be too few weapons, because professional armies are not famous for holding mobilization stocks and which conscript armies have.

Why? Because the conscript army on a peacetime basis is scaled down to 1/3 the volume of the professional army. The whole point of it, is to develop mobilization and fill vacancies with conscripts, much earlier trained, already in peacetime! Thanks to this, it is not necessary to cut off part of their training to the most basic skills in order for the front to get immediate replacements, because they have these skills hammered into their heads.

The problem with the national volunteer spurt, precisely lies in the fact that most often it fails to take full advantage of it, and such people will be trained much worse than conscripts. Because the trainers must immediately push them out of training after they finish the basics to make room for the next ones.

If instead, you build a system that teaches the necessary skills in peacetime. In the event of a W, such volunteers along with mobilizers will be much more useful. Because you only have to test their skills in a refresher course and, if you are building a new unit from scratch with mobilized and volunteers, lump them together. Which will take much less time than if you have to train them from scratch.

This approach, in a way, is counting on the luck and stamina of the professionals to hold the line until the new forces arrive. This approach is only viable as safe if you have a position like America did during both World Wars. In other cases, it is as in the first sentence.

Forcing countries that are, in the event of war, immediately in conflict on their territory to take this approach. This is an example, dishonesty and naiveté. A wrong approach that will get many more people killed. It would even be immoral for them to do so.


But hey! They're not being forced by force to serve in the army! After all, that's great, right?
And the fact that because of this attitude, many of them will be killed during the war is none of our business./sarcazm mode

As they say, prevention is better than cure.

Conscription is to put it bluntly, forcing people to do military service.

If you need to conscript people, you have a lack of volunteering people. And if you have a lack of volunteers, it might be for a very good reason.

I cannot say that a good nation would force anybody to do anything, typically those trying to be good do the opposite and do this thingy called freedom. Very rare nowadays but it's an ideal.

 

[Marduk]

Conscription is to put it bluntly, forcing people to do military service.

If you need to conscript people, you have a lack of volunteering people. And if you have a lack of volunteers, it might be for a very good reason.

I cannot say that a good nation would force anybody to do anything, typically those trying to be good do the opposite and do this thingy called freedom. Very rare nowadays but it's an ideal.

Would you rather have conscription or pay the kind of taxes a place like Israel or South Korea would need to fund a fully professional army of sufficient size?

 

[Aldarion]

What I'm seeing from the pro-conscription side boils down to: "We need conscription because people won't sign up to defend the regime unless they're forced to at gunpoint."
Maybe the problem's not the people there...

No, the argument is that war does not always allow you enough time to prepare for it.

United States are in a fairly unique position of not having major enemies that they share a land border with. This has allowed them to maintain an all-volunteer army and for the system to work fairly well. Not everybody is so lucky though. And that is where conscription comes in - it provides a large quantity of already trained reservists who will require only the minimal refresher training before going into the field.

Also, if you are worried about "the regime", you will want conscription, or at least something similar (e.g. territorial defense, which I believe to be the best solution to the problem). Mercenaries can be readily turned against the people. Conscripts are "the people". The entire reason why West professionalized armies after the Cold War was because they wanted to be free to mount expeditionary wars without worrying about public opinion.

Regime that wants to disarm the population will want the fully professional army.

 

[Marduk]

Regime that wants to disarm the population will want the fully professional army.

Or more likely, an outright regime defense force like the IRGC or SS just in case the conscript army gets ideas.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Would you rather have conscription or pay the kind of taxes a place like Israel or South Korea would need to fund a fully professional army of sufficient size?

I'd rather have a nation sufficiently well-liked and respected that it's civilians would gladly serve it militarily.
Overly idealistic, yeah, but that's my preference.
I'm all for conscription provided that nobody is exempt. That means women, that means bankers, that means politicians.

 

[Marduk]

I'd rather have a nation sufficiently well-liked and respected that it's civilians would gladly serve it militarily.

Overly idealistic, yeah, but that's my preference.

You have answered yourself. It's an ideal, not a practical solution. Even in an optimistic scenario, this would more or less crap out as a system in the "who, when" department.

I'm all for conscription provided that nobody is exempt. That means women, that means bankers, that means politicians.

That's a silly egalitarian brainbug. We have no obligation to run societies that way. And if some socialist troll complains, tell him to fuck off to China. Conscription is supposed to serve to fulfill the military needs of the country, not the emotional needs of idealist egalitarians.
Though there is an argument that people not covered by conscription should pay more taxes in exchange.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

You have answered yourself. It's an ideal, not a practical solution. Even in an optimistic scenario, this would more or less crap out as a system in the "who, when" department.

That's a silly egalitarian brainbug. We have no obligation to run societies that way. And if some socialist troll complains, tell him to fuck off to China. Conscription is supposed to serve to fulfill the military needs of the country, not the emotional needs of idealist egalitarians.
Though there is an argument that people not covered by conscription should pay more taxes in exchange.

I mean just don't be surprised when conscription results in a lot of angry dudes going against their own government when they realize stuff is overly unfair.

People aren't the simple peasants they used to be, even the dumbest person can read advanced philosophy and politics nowadays. Its harder to get the masses to do certain things now. But easier to get them to do other things.

 

[Marduk]

I mean just don't be surprised when conscription results in a lot of angry dudes going against their own government when they realize stuff is overly unfair.

That's the 1917 situation, and naturally it happens when a government uses conscription rather stupidly and exploitatively without expecting trouble.
Though on the other hand, why isn't it happening in Russia, China, and North Korea? Those have huge conscript armies, and the treatment of them is making western conscription look like a vacation.

People aren't the simple peasants they used to be, even the dumbest person can read advanced philosophy and politics nowadays. Its harder to get the masses to do certain things now. But easier to get them to do other things.

They can read, but if they are dumb, they still can't understand what they are reading.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Though on the other hand, why isn't it happening in Russia, China, and North Korea? Those have huge conscript armies, and the treatment of them is making western conscription look like a vacation.

Well...Those three nations are known for some specific behaviors and historical tendencies lmao.

Hardly comparable to John Smith the American, or Jean Luc the Frenchman.

But yus, you can certainly brainwash a populace into becoming human Zerglings.

 

[Marduk]

Well...Those three nations are known for some specific behaviors and historical tendencies lmao.

Hardly comparable to John Smith the American, or Jean Luc the Frenchman.

But yus, you can certainly brainwash a populace into becoming human Zerglings.

France had conscription until 1996.
USA stopped using conscripts only after using them for an unpopular distant expeditionary war.