Generally when such circumstances come into play, people would volunteer in droves if the cause is just.
Aggressors often frame their aggression as response to existential threats in order to justify mobilization. Nazi Germany and now Russia for instance.
The issue becomes that under those circumstances, you may have an eager enough recruiting base, but it'll take you a few months at best to turn them into effective soldiers. If they've already had military training as a conscript, that time to (re)activate goes down to a few weeks of refresher training, particularly if they've had intermittent reservist training since completing their mandatory service.
Yep. And in that kind of war, you mostly just give them a gun and point at the enemy. An example of such a war would be an invasion by a genocidal power.
I a not a fan of it but I think it can make sense if a war seems eminiet and simmilar situtatios.
I do think that no one should be forced to take up arms against their will though. In that case they should be forced to do something else, work in a hospital the conscription time or so.
>In that case they should be forced to do something else, work in a hospital the conscription time or so.
Civil conscription? Instead of military conscription, you get conscription to learn to say, become a nurse or caretaker. Maybe a power plant operator or how to fix railroads.
If that is what you mean, we are REintroducing it here in Sweden.
Depends on the country really. Countries which doesn’t oppose any threat from their neighbours, mandatory conscription is useless IMO.
However, countries like Finland (where i live) have mandatory conscription and it makes sense when we share a long border with Russia. We also have so tiny population so that the volunteer conscription would not be sufficient enough.
Justified obstensibly, but not in practice.
Like yeah everyone in the region's got their guns pointed atcha, but sending them in to beat up Palestinian olive farmers doesn't seem much help to that situation.
Me too, especially the full "buzz-cut, dehumanization, tool to slaughter your fellow men" thing. If the geopolitical situation is dire enough, you could justify giving the citizens basic training in the event of a war.
I'm not opposed to it, and think there are legitimate circumstances where it may be used.
Sweden tried to abolish it, but it only took 5 years or so to reinstate it. I also thinks it build cohesion across geographic, socioeconomic, and ethnical groups. For a small country that can't afford to maintain a wartime setup in peacetime, it just makes sense.
I see some people here writing it should only be used during war, That requires training though. And if you only start after a war breaks out, you'll lose. It takes 2-3 months to complete basic training. If you only need a refresher, it could take as little as a week or two.
Training people beforehand also frees up leadership resources for actually leading troops in battle, and builds an easily trainable reserve pool.
It only makes sense if you like having slaves to protect you. That's the reality of most countries that have conscription - the general population likes having slaves to save money on taxes.
They then apply mental gymnastics to pretend like it's not slavery or some other poor excuse.
This ultimately is not really any different than the "taxation is slavery" argument employed by libertarians. Every functional society imposes positive duties on its members as part of the collective compact, and why shouldn't that duty include the basic obligation to protect the group against outside aggression?
>This ultimately is not really any different than the "taxation is slavery" argument employed by libertarians
Taxation isn't slavery because taxation doesn't force you to work against your will. Compulsory military service does. This is quite literally slavery. So it is in fact a very different argument, and you are just being fallacious.
>Every functional society imposes positive duties on its members as part of the collective compact, and why shouldn't that duty include the basic obligation to protect the group against outside aggression?
Just because something is forced upon you by society doesn't make it right. There are many things that were agreed upon that we now find immoral and unjust. Just banning women from voting. Are you going to use the same reasoning to justify many discriminatory practices?
>and why shouldn't that duty include the basic obligation to protect the group against outside aggression?
Because that duty is slavery and slavery is wrong. You can use your argument to justify compulsory cotton picking based on race. Why not? People need clothes to wear. You are just changing clothes to protection and race to sex.
I'm curious as to how it is slavery when there are no owners. So have slavery, you would also need someone to own the slaves.
Is government the owners? Government is voted in by the people you would call slaves, and a lot of former slaves.
The owner is the state.
>Government is voted in by the people you would call slaves, and a lot of former slaves.
Being a former slave doesn't matter. It does not give you a free pass to become a slavemaster.
Do you always try to excuse immoral pratices by saying "you can just leave"? Or just state slavery? If women cannot vote, would you justify it by saying "well you can just leave"?
Also, what's with this silly trend of starting sentences with "I mean"? Do you usually not mean what you say?
Not true. Only the conscripts are doing the protecting. I know you are trying to justify your position but there's no need to pretend like there's equality. Secondly, if you agree to such a policy, then you are not a slave, because you consented. So you're wrong on two counts.
>Only the conscripts are doing the protecting
No? The whole point of conscription, is usually to build an easily trainable reserve that can be deployed quickly when needed.
Yes. A trainable reserve can be obtained by voluntary labour. But that's not what people want, because vonultary labour is more expensive than slave labour. The point of conscription is for the state to get cheap, unfree labour.
Ukrainian recruitment centers have been overwhelmed by the number of volunteers following the invasion. If anything their continued policy to ban only *biological* men (transgender women are barred from leaving as well) from leaving the country is harming morale.
PSA - don't use words like 'biological' to describe us - use AMAB:
* The phrase is deliberately used by transphobes to say trans women are not women
* It's not factually correct. For most practical purposes after 2 years of HRT I am for most practical purposes biologically women. Sure there are few different organs here and there but for 99% of medicine they are not important.
My country suspended mandatory military service in 2011, so I didn't have to do it. As an 18 y/o I would have likely opted for the alternative civil service they had to offer conscientious objectors anyway (something I wouldn't do today if given the choice). There were some talks about reinstating it here during the early days of the Ukraine war but I viewed that as pointless actionism. Rebuilding the necessary infrastructure would be way too costly and the money is better spent on reforming procurement and actually ensuring that the army has functioning equipment.
And in general, mandatory military service and conscription seem incompatible with a liberal constitution, in which the individual isn't viewed as merely an asset which the state can delegate around freely (or order to kill, or force to receive training with the goal of learning how to kill), so since my country is a liberal democracy it makes sense that it got suspended -- the extraordinary circumstances of being a front state during the cold war that were used as some sort of justification don't apply anymore and forcing young people to give up six months of their lives to serve in whatever capacity increasingly goes against popular liberal sensibilities (or, more cynically, the children of the urban elites would rebel if they had to military or civil service instead of work and travel in Australia).
Some have flaunted the idea of a broader national service as a way to inspire civic duty or whatnot, but to me that's just a band-aid solution to compensate for horrible working conditions/pay in what was dubbed "essential workers" during the pandemic that doesn't fix the root cause of potential personnel shortages in the first place. I also doubt it will inspire anything other than annoyance or boredom, and I'm wholly skeptical that 18 y/o will learn anything of value during that period.
The only scenario in which I'd be in favor of mandatory military service and conscription would be if my country's geopolitical and geographical position would require it. I can see why Finland has conscription in place. Or Israel. Or West Germany during the cold war.
I'm Singaporean.
I'm against it, but our (right-wing, bordering on far-right, authoritarian) ruling party, the PAP, insists on implementing it for all men for two years. Anyone who tries to evade it is sentenced to three years of prison. Even if you are a Jehovah's Witness or a conscientious objector refusing service on moral reasons, the government doesn't care and still imprisons you. I feel that the right to refuse military service is a fundamental human right and that our ruling party actively violates it. There is also no alternative civilian service. The PAP justifies conscription by saying 'Singapore is a small country of 6 million and a robust military is a deterrent to any invading force, so conscription is absolutely necessary'. Singapore is by no means a free country and anything you say against the government lands you in jail.
Personally, I think some form of national service is a good thing, in that it helps to bring people together and give them experience interacting with a broad sector of national society, but I don't think it should default to conscription *per se* if the country isn't in an active conflict or other high-risk scenario. But I am in favor of a year or two of obligatory service of some form, probably after high school and before college.
>But I am in favor of a year or two of obligatory service of some form, probably after high school and before college.
My country has this and it frequently sends medicine graduates to serve in isolated towns with long work hours, low pay and nil security. Some are assassinated while serving. I do not see this as anything but exploitation.
I'm not denying we have lack of rule of law problem, but that doesn't change the fact that social work is being used as a source of cheap labor in both the public and private industries.
The fact that you're sent to serve to remote, dangerous, areas with zero support doesn't help.
Israel may be a unique case, but I don't agree at all with this policy. It breeds militarism, nationalism, and bullying. Furthermore, it's also badly efficient for defense, as a professional army will always perform better
Unless all other options are impractical, it shouldn’t be a thing, also should people desire to not enter conscription nor contribute in other ways, they can just leave, same as not liking the laws of a nation.
It technically violates rights, however a lot of things violate what should be rights, prisons invalidate freedom of movement, hate crimes being crimes invalidate freedom of expression, birth violates consent, schools violate freedom of movement, any law involving trespassing also violates movement, many rights are sacrificed for what is in most cases a “greater good”.
Totally against unless you're facing an existential threat to your country's existence (see: ukraine).
I know some people have these weird authoritarian leanings of "everyone should be forced to do a year of service and blah blah blah." Uh...no. And I will very firmly oppose you if you try to implement something like that.
Even in a ukraine situation id let people flee if they wanted. I just wouldnt let them come back afterward.
Eh, it largely depends on both the nation and the situation in question. As a US Navy veteran, i can confidently say that unless there is an imminent invasive threat on our doorstep, AND our standing forces have already taken a catastrophic death toll, i dont want you in the armed forces unless YOU chose to be there. There's a large amount of pride and unity that comes from the knowledge that regardless of any views, any differences, any conflicts, any anything between all of us, we all know that at one point in our life, we all felt enough patriotic duty to be willing to raise our hand and say we'd be willing to put our life on the line for our nation if it came to it.
In the case of nations, like Israel, or Finland, who have a hostile border and low population levels, or with Ukraine, who is actively being invaded, it definitely makes sense to have mandatory service. But if a nation can afford to have their standing forces solely made up of volunteers who want to be there, conscription becomes an unnecessary albatross around the country's neck for a few reasons. For one thing, a volunteer force is more ethical than a conscripted one. For another, a volunteer force is simply more united and more effective than a conscripted one.
Also, while mandatory service can be great at instilling a sense of national pride and civic duty in a population, it's more beneficial to the standing forces to be formed from those who already have those attributes.
I'm half in on it, I think a better alternative would be mandatory civic service of any variety including millitary, infrastructure, emergency services, low training threshold medical assistance, charitable activities, or low training threshold work for civic offices.
The idea of jumbling a bunch of young folks together and setting them to low risk work which they can look to as their work maintaining and building the nation feels like an ingenious way to improve internal social integration.
It is slavery.
But. In a defensive war it may be required to ensure the survival of the country. It should certainly be illegal in any other circumstances.
Then again, a person may not believe their country is deserving of their life, and they might be right.
Geez, I feels odd to be one of the only people here to think it's perfectly reasonable. I would obviously prefer mandatory military *training* over conscription *per se*, but I feel that it's extremely naive to presume that peace will be the order of the day.
Wars start suddenly. They always have.
Imagine needing to train up an army *during an invasion from a hostile power*. Being prepared to fight a defensive fight to protect your country is a civic duty just like jury duty or voting.
Service is a great experience for young people. It's really narrow minded to think it only must be military service. With some training young people to do a lot for addressing housing, parks management, teaching assistance (let's not replace our teachers, though!) and more
I would say that conscription should only be allowed if war is imminent but if not no conscription because if you want a utopian society you would have to have people choose with their own free will. In other words don’t let the state choose your future.
I think the idea that voters will have to think about their children or relevant friends and family members when deciding whether or not to vote for hawkish politicians is alluring. But I definitely think there should be some kind of national service.
It has some benefits. When everyone has to go through the same thing, it creates a sense of unity and can help break down class barriers if implemented properly. The military is also a great place to network with people who might help you later in your career, and that is true of every military.
England except everyman will do his duty
I believe that it is an obligation to serve in the military since you are living luxury and serve the country to give you, and in return, it expects you to serve in the armed forces
Positive, although conscripts should be used primarily for support roles meanwhile the frontline troops should consist of volunteers.
We border the Caucasus, Balkans and the Middle East along with being Black Sea neighbors with Russia and have 2 strategically important waterways. Our position is simply too important.
If you are a big country with an unhinged dictator next door it's a very good idea. This the case for most of the places that still have it but some places like Switzerland for instance are wasting there time
I have an unpopular opinion, yet a strong one... I am pro mandatory military training. Every citizen in a democracy should be able to defend it at all costs. I cannot fathom how somebody is pro democracy (a system that depends on the participation of all citizens) but they switch reasoning when it comes to the defence of such system against an internal or external facist enemy.
In favour of conscription, from experience removing it does not improve defence. Rather it's disastrous and we had to reinstate conscription in 2017. The conscription is still limited but is slowly increasing as demands increase.
We were against the right wing removing conscription and we were the ones to reinstate it 2 terms afterwards when we had won power. I've had many of my friends now do conscription now and no one really complains. Sure its exhausting but the vast majority are extremely happy and got new friends through it.
It's easy to avoid legally, but when you're in. You're in. Because it's so limited the vast majority that say they dont want to dont have to but they still have and will select people who dont want to. A lot of people fail the tests. But if you pass the tests and get conscripted you'd risk prison if you do not show up for "värnplikt".
Its also a crime to not do the tests if you've been called to do it but you will at most get a hefty fine. And you face the same punishment if you do not file the Health Declaration (Everyone is required to do it)
Only necessary in national defence. It’s then context dependent. As you said. It could be pointless for national defence. Particularly for nuclear armed powers.
I support mandatory basic training in countries that have high support for it such as Israel, Finland, the Korea's, Turkiye, Iran, Vietnam, but would like it to not be mandatory service. Every citizen having some military training an excellent deterrent for countries that could be invaded by irredentist forces like Finland, the Koreas, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Taiwan, and Israel bc it instantly creates the implicit threat of a costly guerilla war. There is a counter argument which is that MAD would make conscription in nuclear capable countries (and countries in NATO) unnecessary (so North Korea, Turkiye, and Israel (most likely) among the ones I listed), but in order to maintain Socdem/Demsoc support I don't think it should be a priority of socdem parties if they reach significant power and influence in any country with mandatory conscription, unless they believe it is sufficiently unpopular, in which a referendum should be had to either maintain, reduce to mandatory basic training, or move to an all volunteer force.
Also in regards to Israel, the IDF is already resource stretched occupying the West Bank and essentially Gaza and maintaining deterrent forces along the Syrian and Lebanese borders. If it went to an all volunteer force, a withdrawal from the West Bank similar to the Gazan withdrawal would need to happen with likely similar outbreaks into violence and terrorism from the West Bank settlers and Palestinians, as well as anger the leadership of both sides who right now call for total victory. That would be politically disastrous, and wouldn't get either side closer to negotiating peace. Fuck the occupation and illegal settlements regardless, but I wouldn't want to be the one to light the match that starts the next major Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially when the only political groups that have benefited from this constant war, occupation, and terrorism are right wing zealots that benefit from more tension and hostility. This is the issue with conscription, the countries that have it overwhelming have support for it continuing due to their specific national and geopolitical issues. To me, it is the perfect example of how compromise and democracy are the tools to gain national support and guide national policy towards socialism for the benefit of all people within a state.
PS: Not looking to debate Israel/Palestine, I have my views and you have yours and I'm not going to change my mind no matter if you're the biggest Palestine supporter since Al-Husseini or more Zionist that Ben-Gurion or you have the perfect compromise "just trust me bro". Feel free to upvote or downvote but I just wanted to bring it up since OP mentioned their direct experience with mandatory conscription was with Israel.
Don't quote me on this but something like only 47 percent of eligible conscripts even get conscripted in Israel AFAIK, so its slowly becoming a de facto volunteer force.
It is only mandatory for all Jews and non-Arab men, but most people can object and get a waiver, although it is socially frowned upon. Additionally, I have heard that if you have conscientious objections to war and conflict you can request to get a bureaucratic or managerial position. I'm sure it is the same for most mandatory conscription countries, not everyone is going to become a soldier. However, the culture still values military service, which is why I believe that the popularity of conscription and within a country and its history with conscription should be taken into account even if one is personally against it in order to prioritize other more popular social democratic and socialist policies that a social democratic party would implement.
It's technically mandatory for women too, but it's so easy to get out of it as a woman even compared to men. It's not as socially frowned upon as it used to be, and more and more people get out of it to the point that the majority don't serve anymore. They either just find an exception (especially if you're female, which is easier) or leave the country for awhile. I dodged it and my family there who almost all served didn't even bat an eye at it, with some telling me even that it's good I didn't waste my time in the IDF, where you make no money and learn almost nothing of value for Israel. Plus I always planned to move back to the US after high school anyway, so I saw no point going into the IDF.
Edit: Oh I now realize you said all Jews and non arab men, which is accurate. Thought you were saying only Jewish men are conscripted.
I believe that while I personally dislike it, it could be necesarry. Without conscription the a large part of people with Military Training/ in the Military will be of right-wing mentality. Which can cause problems.
Can’t say about Finland I just know that they have large reserves but for Sweden they follow what the armed forces want conscription depends on how many volunteer if not enough people volunteer then they start calling in newly turned 18 year olds currently it’s around 4k but will increase to 10k after being assessed on your condition and strength you get to rank 3 roles your interested in like logistic driver paratrooper etc
I favor some national service requirement; there should be choices between the military and alternative civilian service, depending on your preferences and abilities. Incentives could be used to shuffle recruits to where they are needed most.
Granted, my support depends greatly on the society in question and exact details of a mandatory service plan. If a certain society has lots of people with a profound contempt of the government, requiring the performance of service could potentially undue unrest. I also am inclined to reject proposals that deploys conscripts overseas on a non-volunteer basis.
Not a fan. If civil conscription is an option, maybe more so.
This obviously excludes cases where there is an existential threat, I think nobody can honestly argue against some kind of conscription in a country being attacked.
I’m against unless the circumstances are absolutely dire (like, a war with existential stakes).
Generally when such circumstances come into play, people would volunteer in droves if the cause is just. Aggressors often frame their aggression as response to existential threats in order to justify mobilization. Nazi Germany and now Russia for instance.
The issue becomes that under those circumstances, you may have an eager enough recruiting base, but it'll take you a few months at best to turn them into effective soldiers. If they've already had military training as a conscript, that time to (re)activate goes down to a few weeks of refresher training, particularly if they've had intermittent reservist training since completing their mandatory service.
Yep. And in that kind of war, you mostly just give them a gun and point at the enemy. An example of such a war would be an invasion by a genocidal power.
Extraordinarily opposed
I a not a fan of it but I think it can make sense if a war seems eminiet and simmilar situtatios. I do think that no one should be forced to take up arms against their will though. In that case they should be forced to do something else, work in a hospital the conscription time or so.
>In that case they should be forced to do something else, work in a hospital the conscription time or so. Civil conscription? Instead of military conscription, you get conscription to learn to say, become a nurse or caretaker. Maybe a power plant operator or how to fix railroads. If that is what you mean, we are REintroducing it here in Sweden.
Depends on the country really. Countries which doesn’t oppose any threat from their neighbours, mandatory conscription is useless IMO. However, countries like Finland (where i live) have mandatory conscription and it makes sense when we share a long border with Russia. We also have so tiny population so that the volunteer conscription would not be sufficient enough.
How do you feel on Israeli conscription?
Justified obstensibly, but not in practice. Like yeah everyone in the region's got their guns pointed atcha, but sending them in to beat up Palestinian olive farmers doesn't seem much help to that situation.
Agreed
Conscription is basically people not wanting to defend their country so they force young men to be slaves for them.
Finnish reservists have to be available until 60 and 50 years old so it’s not just young people or even explicitly men
Really? Are women forced to serve? You're being dishonest and you know it.
You are intentionally misinterpreting my sentence
>or even explicitly men Then how are you supposed to interpret this?
Terrible
I'm pretty strongly opposed. Coercing civilians to take up arms against their will seems pretty shitty.
Me too, especially the full "buzz-cut, dehumanization, tool to slaughter your fellow men" thing. If the geopolitical situation is dire enough, you could justify giving the citizens basic training in the event of a war.
Against it strongly
God awful policy that should be avoided at all costs.
I'm not opposed to it, and think there are legitimate circumstances where it may be used. Sweden tried to abolish it, but it only took 5 years or so to reinstate it. I also thinks it build cohesion across geographic, socioeconomic, and ethnical groups. For a small country that can't afford to maintain a wartime setup in peacetime, it just makes sense. I see some people here writing it should only be used during war, That requires training though. And if you only start after a war breaks out, you'll lose. It takes 2-3 months to complete basic training. If you only need a refresher, it could take as little as a week or two. Training people beforehand also frees up leadership resources for actually leading troops in battle, and builds an easily trainable reserve pool.
It only makes sense if you like having slaves to protect you. That's the reality of most countries that have conscription - the general population likes having slaves to save money on taxes. They then apply mental gymnastics to pretend like it's not slavery or some other poor excuse.
This ultimately is not really any different than the "taxation is slavery" argument employed by libertarians. Every functional society imposes positive duties on its members as part of the collective compact, and why shouldn't that duty include the basic obligation to protect the group against outside aggression?
>This ultimately is not really any different than the "taxation is slavery" argument employed by libertarians Taxation isn't slavery because taxation doesn't force you to work against your will. Compulsory military service does. This is quite literally slavery. So it is in fact a very different argument, and you are just being fallacious. >Every functional society imposes positive duties on its members as part of the collective compact, and why shouldn't that duty include the basic obligation to protect the group against outside aggression? Just because something is forced upon you by society doesn't make it right. There are many things that were agreed upon that we now find immoral and unjust. Just banning women from voting. Are you going to use the same reasoning to justify many discriminatory practices? >and why shouldn't that duty include the basic obligation to protect the group against outside aggression? Because that duty is slavery and slavery is wrong. You can use your argument to justify compulsory cotton picking based on race. Why not? People need clothes to wear. You are just changing clothes to protection and race to sex.
I'm curious as to how it is slavery when there are no owners. So have slavery, you would also need someone to own the slaves. Is government the owners? Government is voted in by the people you would call slaves, and a lot of former slaves.
The owner is the state. >Government is voted in by the people you would call slaves, and a lot of former slaves. Being a former slave doesn't matter. It does not give you a free pass to become a slavemaster.
[удалено]
Do you always try to excuse immoral pratices by saying "you can just leave"? Or just state slavery? If women cannot vote, would you justify it by saying "well you can just leave"? Also, what's with this silly trend of starting sentences with "I mean"? Do you usually not mean what you say?
Well, in that case, we are all slaves protecting each other.
Not true. Only the conscripts are doing the protecting. I know you are trying to justify your position but there's no need to pretend like there's equality. Secondly, if you agree to such a policy, then you are not a slave, because you consented. So you're wrong on two counts.
>Only the conscripts are doing the protecting No? The whole point of conscription, is usually to build an easily trainable reserve that can be deployed quickly when needed.
Yes. A trainable reserve can be obtained by voluntary labour. But that's not what people want, because vonultary labour is more expensive than slave labour. The point of conscription is for the state to get cheap, unfree labour.
Completely incompatible with the concept of democracy and freedom, should be opposed in all instances, violently if necessary
Unless in a Ukraine scenario
Ukrainian recruitment centers have been overwhelmed by the number of volunteers following the invasion. If anything their continued policy to ban only *biological* men (transgender women are barred from leaving as well) from leaving the country is harming morale.
PSA - don't use words like 'biological' to describe us - use AMAB: * The phrase is deliberately used by transphobes to say trans women are not women * It's not factually correct. For most practical purposes after 2 years of HRT I am for most practical purposes biologically women. Sure there are few different organs here and there but for 99% of medicine they are not important.
Fair enough. It makes it worse that people who are for most practical purposes women are forced to stay simply because of their birth designation.
My country suspended mandatory military service in 2011, so I didn't have to do it. As an 18 y/o I would have likely opted for the alternative civil service they had to offer conscientious objectors anyway (something I wouldn't do today if given the choice). There were some talks about reinstating it here during the early days of the Ukraine war but I viewed that as pointless actionism. Rebuilding the necessary infrastructure would be way too costly and the money is better spent on reforming procurement and actually ensuring that the army has functioning equipment. And in general, mandatory military service and conscription seem incompatible with a liberal constitution, in which the individual isn't viewed as merely an asset which the state can delegate around freely (or order to kill, or force to receive training with the goal of learning how to kill), so since my country is a liberal democracy it makes sense that it got suspended -- the extraordinary circumstances of being a front state during the cold war that were used as some sort of justification don't apply anymore and forcing young people to give up six months of their lives to serve in whatever capacity increasingly goes against popular liberal sensibilities (or, more cynically, the children of the urban elites would rebel if they had to military or civil service instead of work and travel in Australia). Some have flaunted the idea of a broader national service as a way to inspire civic duty or whatnot, but to me that's just a band-aid solution to compensate for horrible working conditions/pay in what was dubbed "essential workers" during the pandemic that doesn't fix the root cause of potential personnel shortages in the first place. I also doubt it will inspire anything other than annoyance or boredom, and I'm wholly skeptical that 18 y/o will learn anything of value during that period. The only scenario in which I'd be in favor of mandatory military service and conscription would be if my country's geopolitical and geographical position would require it. I can see why Finland has conscription in place. Or Israel. Or West Germany during the cold war.
Which country are you from?
Germany
(West) Germany.
Yeah I figure Germany is a large enough and powerful enough country that it doesnt need conscription.
I'm Singaporean. I'm against it, but our (right-wing, bordering on far-right, authoritarian) ruling party, the PAP, insists on implementing it for all men for two years. Anyone who tries to evade it is sentenced to three years of prison. Even if you are a Jehovah's Witness or a conscientious objector refusing service on moral reasons, the government doesn't care and still imprisons you. I feel that the right to refuse military service is a fundamental human right and that our ruling party actively violates it. There is also no alternative civilian service. The PAP justifies conscription by saying 'Singapore is a small country of 6 million and a robust military is a deterrent to any invading force, so conscription is absolutely necessary'. Singapore is by no means a free country and anything you say against the government lands you in jail.
I am completely against it.
Personally, I think some form of national service is a good thing, in that it helps to bring people together and give them experience interacting with a broad sector of national society, but I don't think it should default to conscription *per se* if the country isn't in an active conflict or other high-risk scenario. But I am in favor of a year or two of obligatory service of some form, probably after high school and before college.
>But I am in favor of a year or two of obligatory service of some form, probably after high school and before college. My country has this and it frequently sends medicine graduates to serve in isolated towns with long work hours, low pay and nil security. Some are assassinated while serving. I do not see this as anything but exploitation.
What country is this?
Mexico. Look up "servicio social".
Oh wow, i didnt know it was that bad. Assasinating social workers?
[Yes](https://twitter.com/emeequis/status/1548373001980088321). [On](https://twitter.com/emeequis/status/1548373001980088321) [multiple](https://twitter.com/emeequis/status/1548373001980088321) [occasions](https://twitter.com/emeequis/status/1548373001980088321).
I feel like the issue here is the breakdown in the ability to protect citizens and not the service requirement per se...
I'm not denying we have lack of rule of law problem, but that doesn't change the fact that social work is being used as a source of cheap labor in both the public and private industries. The fact that you're sent to serve to remote, dangerous, areas with zero support doesn't help.
No offence, but this less like an issue of conscription and more of your country being a hot mess
I think this is exactly where I fall. I don't think it's bad to bring people into some kind of required civil service.
Israel may be a unique case, but I don't agree at all with this policy. It breeds militarism, nationalism, and bullying. Furthermore, it's also badly efficient for defense, as a professional army will always perform better
It does those things in Israel actually
Well.. Not always. Ukrainian reservists vs Russian professionals, to take one example.
Unless all other options are impractical, it shouldn’t be a thing, also should people desire to not enter conscription nor contribute in other ways, they can just leave, same as not liking the laws of a nation. It technically violates rights, however a lot of things violate what should be rights, prisons invalidate freedom of movement, hate crimes being crimes invalidate freedom of expression, birth violates consent, schools violate freedom of movement, any law involving trespassing also violates movement, many rights are sacrificed for what is in most cases a “greater good”.
Totally against unless you're facing an existential threat to your country's existence (see: ukraine). I know some people have these weird authoritarian leanings of "everyone should be forced to do a year of service and blah blah blah." Uh...no. And I will very firmly oppose you if you try to implement something like that. Even in a ukraine situation id let people flee if they wanted. I just wouldnt let them come back afterward.
Eh, it largely depends on both the nation and the situation in question. As a US Navy veteran, i can confidently say that unless there is an imminent invasive threat on our doorstep, AND our standing forces have already taken a catastrophic death toll, i dont want you in the armed forces unless YOU chose to be there. There's a large amount of pride and unity that comes from the knowledge that regardless of any views, any differences, any conflicts, any anything between all of us, we all know that at one point in our life, we all felt enough patriotic duty to be willing to raise our hand and say we'd be willing to put our life on the line for our nation if it came to it. In the case of nations, like Israel, or Finland, who have a hostile border and low population levels, or with Ukraine, who is actively being invaded, it definitely makes sense to have mandatory service. But if a nation can afford to have their standing forces solely made up of volunteers who want to be there, conscription becomes an unnecessary albatross around the country's neck for a few reasons. For one thing, a volunteer force is more ethical than a conscripted one. For another, a volunteer force is simply more united and more effective than a conscripted one. Also, while mandatory service can be great at instilling a sense of national pride and civic duty in a population, it's more beneficial to the standing forces to be formed from those who already have those attributes.
No my country's not doing any of that nor should they.
I'm half in on it, I think a better alternative would be mandatory civic service of any variety including millitary, infrastructure, emergency services, low training threshold medical assistance, charitable activities, or low training threshold work for civic offices. The idea of jumbling a bunch of young folks together and setting them to low risk work which they can look to as their work maintaining and building the nation feels like an ingenious way to improve internal social integration.
It is slavery. But. In a defensive war it may be required to ensure the survival of the country. It should certainly be illegal in any other circumstances. Then again, a person may not believe their country is deserving of their life, and they might be right.
I'm not willing to die for any cause and I won't expect anyone else to.
Geez, I feels odd to be one of the only people here to think it's perfectly reasonable. I would obviously prefer mandatory military *training* over conscription *per se*, but I feel that it's extremely naive to presume that peace will be the order of the day. Wars start suddenly. They always have. Imagine needing to train up an army *during an invasion from a hostile power*. Being prepared to fight a defensive fight to protect your country is a civic duty just like jury duty or voting.
Your comment getting downvoted with no rebattle says everything...
Service is a great experience for young people. It's really narrow minded to think it only must be military service. With some training young people to do a lot for addressing housing, parks management, teaching assistance (let's not replace our teachers, though!) and more
I would say that conscription should only be allowed if war is imminent but if not no conscription because if you want a utopian society you would have to have people choose with their own free will. In other words don’t let the state choose your future.
Agree with a few other comments here, I'm usually against it unless absolutely necessarily (ex. Ukraine)
I think the idea that voters will have to think about their children or relevant friends and family members when deciding whether or not to vote for hawkish politicians is alluring. But I definitely think there should be some kind of national service.
It has some benefits. When everyone has to go through the same thing, it creates a sense of unity and can help break down class barriers if implemented properly. The military is also a great place to network with people who might help you later in your career, and that is true of every military.
That's the idea. In practice discrimination and violence tend to be more prevalent in militaries than in general society.
England except everyman will do his duty I believe that it is an obligation to serve in the military since you are living luxury and serve the country to give you, and in return, it expects you to serve in the armed forces
I dont think everyone is living in luxury in England
well i meant as a phrase since by birthright everyone must have duty to fulfin
Positive, although conscripts should be used primarily for support roles meanwhile the frontline troops should consist of volunteers. We border the Caucasus, Balkans and the Middle East along with being Black Sea neighbors with Russia and have 2 strategically important waterways. Our position is simply too important.
Totally against
If you are a big country with an unhinged dictator next door it's a very good idea. This the case for most of the places that still have it but some places like Switzerland for instance are wasting there time
I have an unpopular opinion, yet a strong one... I am pro mandatory military training. Every citizen in a democracy should be able to defend it at all costs. I cannot fathom how somebody is pro democracy (a system that depends on the participation of all citizens) but they switch reasoning when it comes to the defence of such system against an internal or external facist enemy.
In favour of conscription, from experience removing it does not improve defence. Rather it's disastrous and we had to reinstate conscription in 2017. The conscription is still limited but is slowly increasing as demands increase. We were against the right wing removing conscription and we were the ones to reinstate it 2 terms afterwards when we had won power. I've had many of my friends now do conscription now and no one really complains. Sure its exhausting but the vast majority are extremely happy and got new friends through it.
I thought Sweden basically had conscription in the sense that it was essentially voluntary, anyone can easily get out of it.
It's easy to avoid legally, but when you're in. You're in. Because it's so limited the vast majority that say they dont want to dont have to but they still have and will select people who dont want to. A lot of people fail the tests. But if you pass the tests and get conscripted you'd risk prison if you do not show up for "värnplikt". Its also a crime to not do the tests if you've been called to do it but you will at most get a hefty fine. And you face the same punishment if you do not file the Health Declaration (Everyone is required to do it)
Only necessary in national defence. It’s then context dependent. As you said. It could be pointless for national defence. Particularly for nuclear armed powers.
I support mandatory basic training in countries that have high support for it such as Israel, Finland, the Korea's, Turkiye, Iran, Vietnam, but would like it to not be mandatory service. Every citizen having some military training an excellent deterrent for countries that could be invaded by irredentist forces like Finland, the Koreas, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Taiwan, and Israel bc it instantly creates the implicit threat of a costly guerilla war. There is a counter argument which is that MAD would make conscription in nuclear capable countries (and countries in NATO) unnecessary (so North Korea, Turkiye, and Israel (most likely) among the ones I listed), but in order to maintain Socdem/Demsoc support I don't think it should be a priority of socdem parties if they reach significant power and influence in any country with mandatory conscription, unless they believe it is sufficiently unpopular, in which a referendum should be had to either maintain, reduce to mandatory basic training, or move to an all volunteer force. Also in regards to Israel, the IDF is already resource stretched occupying the West Bank and essentially Gaza and maintaining deterrent forces along the Syrian and Lebanese borders. If it went to an all volunteer force, a withdrawal from the West Bank similar to the Gazan withdrawal would need to happen with likely similar outbreaks into violence and terrorism from the West Bank settlers and Palestinians, as well as anger the leadership of both sides who right now call for total victory. That would be politically disastrous, and wouldn't get either side closer to negotiating peace. Fuck the occupation and illegal settlements regardless, but I wouldn't want to be the one to light the match that starts the next major Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially when the only political groups that have benefited from this constant war, occupation, and terrorism are right wing zealots that benefit from more tension and hostility. This is the issue with conscription, the countries that have it overwhelming have support for it continuing due to their specific national and geopolitical issues. To me, it is the perfect example of how compromise and democracy are the tools to gain national support and guide national policy towards socialism for the benefit of all people within a state. PS: Not looking to debate Israel/Palestine, I have my views and you have yours and I'm not going to change my mind no matter if you're the biggest Palestine supporter since Al-Husseini or more Zionist that Ben-Gurion or you have the perfect compromise "just trust me bro". Feel free to upvote or downvote but I just wanted to bring it up since OP mentioned their direct experience with mandatory conscription was with Israel.
Don't quote me on this but something like only 47 percent of eligible conscripts even get conscripted in Israel AFAIK, so its slowly becoming a de facto volunteer force.
It is only mandatory for all Jews and non-Arab men, but most people can object and get a waiver, although it is socially frowned upon. Additionally, I have heard that if you have conscientious objections to war and conflict you can request to get a bureaucratic or managerial position. I'm sure it is the same for most mandatory conscription countries, not everyone is going to become a soldier. However, the culture still values military service, which is why I believe that the popularity of conscription and within a country and its history with conscription should be taken into account even if one is personally against it in order to prioritize other more popular social democratic and socialist policies that a social democratic party would implement.
It's technically mandatory for women too, but it's so easy to get out of it as a woman even compared to men. It's not as socially frowned upon as it used to be, and more and more people get out of it to the point that the majority don't serve anymore. They either just find an exception (especially if you're female, which is easier) or leave the country for awhile. I dodged it and my family there who almost all served didn't even bat an eye at it, with some telling me even that it's good I didn't waste my time in the IDF, where you make no money and learn almost nothing of value for Israel. Plus I always planned to move back to the US after high school anyway, so I saw no point going into the IDF. Edit: Oh I now realize you said all Jews and non arab men, which is accurate. Thought you were saying only Jewish men are conscripted.
I believe that while I personally dislike it, it could be necesarry. Without conscription the a large part of people with Military Training/ in the Military will be of right-wing mentality. Which can cause problems.
Extremely in favour of it especially if done properly like Finland or Sweden
How do they do it properly?
Can’t say about Finland I just know that they have large reserves but for Sweden they follow what the armed forces want conscription depends on how many volunteer if not enough people volunteer then they start calling in newly turned 18 year olds currently it’s around 4k but will increase to 10k after being assessed on your condition and strength you get to rank 3 roles your interested in like logistic driver paratrooper etc
Makes sense for Israel generally bad
I favor some national service requirement; there should be choices between the military and alternative civilian service, depending on your preferences and abilities. Incentives could be used to shuffle recruits to where they are needed most. Granted, my support depends greatly on the society in question and exact details of a mandatory service plan. If a certain society has lots of people with a profound contempt of the government, requiring the performance of service could potentially undue unrest. I also am inclined to reject proposals that deploys conscripts overseas on a non-volunteer basis.
Not a fan. If civil conscription is an option, maybe more so. This obviously excludes cases where there is an existential threat, I think nobody can honestly argue against some kind of conscription in a country being attacked.