NationStates Jolt Archive

Today in my Law class we branched off and discussed the potentials of a draft. My argument against it happening was that with the approval levels of the war as low as they are, any politicians would have to be suicidal to institute a draft. There would be rioting, panic and general choas.

One person brought up a different viewpoint. Arguably, the influx of fresh troops would help end the war more quickly, and instead of a draft, make it a general conscription, where all would serve a tour at a certain age. His argument is that there would no longer be a socio-economic imbalance; everyone would serve regardless.

Though I do not agree with the idea of a draft OR a conscription, I can understand where this guy is coming from. The only fair way is a conscription.

What do you think?

I'm not quite sure of the difference between a draft and a conscription. Can you illuminate? I'd check wiki, but it says it's down.

I'm too much for the freedom of the individual to support drafts or conscriptions. If someone doesn't want to go get shot at because the government tells them to, then that should be their right. A country that believes otherwise isn't worth defending.

As far as the war goes, there shouldn't have been one in the first place and the irresponsibility behind it serves as a prime example of why a government shouldn't be allowed to impress its citizens into the army. But I guess thats going off topic.

I'm not quite sure of the difference between a draft and a conscription. Can you illuminate? I'd check wiki, but it says it's down.

A draft is more or less random, where your name is draw from a lot. The problem is, those with connections and who are higher on the socio-economic echelon can outmanuver it. Hence, we have a disparity.

In a conscription, one is brought into the military at a certain age, such as when you graduate high-school. You're socio-economic status has no baring. You go...period.

A draft is more or less random, where your name is draw from a lot. The problem is, those with connections and who are higher on the socio-economic echelon can outmanuver it. Hence, we have a disparity.

In a conscription, one is brought into the military at a certain age, such as when you graduate high-school. You're socio-economic status has no baring. You go...period.

Hmm. I'm not sure I like either one.

Conscription sounds a bit better, but if a draft was TRULY random it would be just as good. For that matter, if you have connections and can outmaneuver a general conscription (I'm sure there are those who can manage this), its just as disparate.

Either way you lose. Both options are no good. If you volunteer, fine, you get what you want. If you have no desire to go or are against the war, why should you be forced. This would just cause dissension (sic?) and protests worse than Vietnam.

Hmm. I'm not sure I like either one.

Conscription sounds a bit better, but if a draft was TRULY random it would be just as good. For that matter, if you have connections and can outmaneuver a general conscription (I'm sure there are those who can manage this), its just as disparate.

More I think about it, more I feel that selective service should be done away with; make military service purely volunteer once and for all. What's the point in defending one's citizens*...if they're all over there fighting? Seems kind of hypocritical.

*And most of the time it seems, the wars have nothing to do with defence. How can I fight for a cause I don't believe in?

Neither one works. They lower morale (being forced to fight under penalty of law isn't going to be a motivator), which in turn results in more desertions and lower fighting readiness. As a result, the number of casualties increases and the effectiveness of the soliders is lowered, which eliminates any benefits and then some, making the situation worse than it was pre-forced service.

me no like, bad medecine

More I think about it, more I feel that selective service should be done away with; make military service purely volunteer once and for all. What's the point in defending one's citizens*...if they're all over there fighting? Seems kind of hypocritical.

*And most of the time it seems, the wars have nothing to do with defence. How can I fight for a cause I don't believe in?

I agree, its one thing to get people to sign up to defend the nation - say, when the Nazis are marching on you and killing and raping and pillaging. But for the US, this sort of thing is a highly remote possibility. Its hard to see how bombing some village on the other side of the globe is defending your nation. (Even if it were.)

And as Vetalia points out, professional volunteer armies are just much more effective at fighting.

I agree with a general conscription provided that the conscripts are not relied upon as combat troops. They should recieve training and be armed, but relied upon to do more of the rear eschelon tasks that keep as many of them out of harm's way as possible.

I don't mind the government running recruitment campaigns to provide an incentive for people to fight for their country, but the idea of forcing people to go worries. I just think that if a cause is that good, there should be enough people willing to go that a draft is unneeded. Of course, that certainly didn't work for WWII, but I'm thinking with the information we are capable of broadcasting today we might be able to fight a more effective for the hearts and minds of people we are trying to convince to volunteer.

Some questions for those of you in favor of a general conscription: How old are you? Do you have any kids? Do realize what this would cost?
Also, I don't think that you can say that a general conscription is truly 'fair.' Sure, it gets rid of the issue of socio-economic differences associated with a draft, but what of people who really have something against serving in the military? What about that whole concept of freedom and the rights of the individual? Someone who wants to serve gets to regardless, but those who don't are not given any kind of choice in the matter. I don't see that as being all that much 'fairer' than a draft.

I agree, its one thing to get people to sign up to defend the nation - say, when the Nazis are marching on you and killing and raping and pillaging. But for the US, this sort of thing is a highly remote possibility. Its hard to see how bombing some village on the other side of the globe is defending your nation. (Even if it were.)
But it is defending your nation, namely defending your nation's interests. I don't think it's fair that the chickenhawks - people who want war but don't want to fight it - can force other people, and not just any people, but those people who volunteer to defend the country.

And as Vetalia points out, professional volunteer armies are just much more effective at fighting.
Could you NOT ASS---UME THIS, PLEASE. I've seen this a million times, and NO ONE wants to actually motivate this position. How can you can go like "I'm not playing" if you're being shot at?

I think that conscription armies are just as good, given equal funding, as professional armies.

EDIT: assUME, not assERT. Well, ass something anyway.

Conscription sounds a bit better, but if a draft was TRULY random it would be just as good. For that matter, if you have connections and can outmaneuver a general conscription (I'm sure there are those who can manage this), its just as disparate.
I know someone who did bribe their way out of conscription. So it's fool proof.

You also get conscientious objectors...

And the people who fake being gay (for example)...

But it is defending your nation, namely defending your nation's interests.

Interest =/= nation


Could you NOT ASSERT THIS, PLEASE.

No. Apparently some people think the Chinese and Russian model of "bury them with our dead bodies" is a brilliant strategy. Including you! So obviously, it needs to be said.

And the people who fake being gay (for example)...


Hendrix....

conscription or drafting for wars like iraq is wrong. Its ok if the whole human race is under threat from space nazis though.

Hendrix....
Exactly!

conscription or drafting for wars like iraq is wrong. Its ok if the whole human race is under threat from space nazis though.
They're probably sitting in their parallel universe plotting for this!

Interest =/= nation

Exactly. I will defend myself and my family. Until that time comes, I will not take up arms against another whom I have no quarrel.

No. Apparently some people think the Chinese and Russian model of "bury them with our dead bodies" is a brilliant strategy. Including you! So obviously, it needs to be said.

Conscripts are generally less well trained than professional soldiers because of sheer numbers. So this "bury 'em in our dead", may be a correct analysis.

Does "Conscription" have to mean Military Service?
Could it not include other public services such as Fire Service, Police, Lifeboats or Refuse Collector?
Individuals may not look forward to having small pieces of metal projected at their soft & squidgy bits :sniper: , but 'the youth of today' could undoubtably benefit from some discipline and the ability to show respect. That would be respect for themselves and others :fluffle: .

Could you NOT ASSERT THIS, PLEASE. I've seen this a million times, and NO ONE wants to actually motivate this position. How can you can go like "I'm not playing" if you're being shot at?
That would be true if you were fighting purely on defense. However, you can't win a war by digging in and praying, eventually you would have to puch forward to claim some ground. When it comes time to move forward, you are going to want someone who is actually ready and prepared to lead the charge as opposed to a conscript who is going to hang back in the mass and focus on not getting hurt.

Anyways, I am against a draft for the same reason I am against slavery. If someone volunteered, than it is their duty to "do and die" based on the whims of their commanding officers. Sucks, but its true.
However, if someone is forced into the service, then they have no duty, and any desertion, flight, sabotage, etc is fully within their rights. The same goes for any other man who is enslaved.

1) what war is this then?

2) conscription should serve as a lifeline in times of need

3) if were talking about military service then yes a few years will do wonders to our crime rates

Where's the obligatory "Depends on the situation" option? :(
The way it is in Germany (very good example here, I even have first and second hand accounts I can give you) is that all male Germans are eligible for the draft. Usually after turning 18, you get a letter telling you to show up for getting checked. After that, you get sorted into one of 5 possible "degrees of suitability" (Tauglichkeitsgrad) and depending on how much money is at hand, that degree decides on whether you get taken or not. Due to budgetary reasons, only grades T-1 and T-2 get taken (I managed to get T-5, so it was out of question that I get taken :D ). Anyway, at any point in time you can apply to be exempted from military service and do social service (Zivildienst) instead. Back in the good old days when the Russians still threatened us, your chances of getting one of those were slimmer, since you have to write an essay on what conscientous objections you might have, and a commission will then rule whether they are enough or not.
Draftees serve for 9 months in Germany, unless they personally apply for more service or service in foreign areas. I've been told by someone that did it that it was "like boy scouts only with guns". Zivildienst lasts for a whole year and is done in various social institutions ranging from hospitals to day care centers.
The German draft is the basis of our social service system, since it gets a lot of young men to do social service for comparatively cheap pay when they probably wouldn't do it otherwise. I used to be against it, but I've changed my mind about it (mainly because I didn't have to take part in it).

Back in the good old days when the Russians still threatened us, your chances of getting one of those were slimmer, since you have to write an essay on what conscientous objections you might have, and a commission will then rule whether they are enough or not.
This, I love.
"I'm sorry Herr Andel, but we just didn't feel that your essay was sufficiently convincing. You had a good opening paragraph, and your use of punctuation was flawless, but your concluding paragraph seemed rushed. Your writing style was also needlessly wordy and overused the passive voice. Finally, you failed to reach the 10 page minimum limit. No, its the guns for you boy!"

The German draft is the basis of our social service system, since it gets a lot of young men to do social service for comparatively cheap pay when they probably wouldn't do it otherwise.
And this is why I hate the idea. If you want more soldiers, offer them enough money so that they feel compensated and are willing to join. If they wouldn't do it without you putting a gun to their heads, they shouldn't have to do it.

No.

You propose defending freedom with a slave army? If a nation's people will not volunteer to defend it, it does not deserve to continue as a nation, plain and simple. It has failed as a society; it's time for another to take over.

Discipline and whatnot can be positive side effects of military service, but these are byproducts, not the purpose of an army. It's not a magic process, either; if people don't want discipline then all the sergeants yelling at them won't make them take it. Military life just brings out these virtues and hones them, and you can't sharpen what was never there in the first place.

Conscription should only be an option when it's the coutry that is being invaded is doing it. when they're in ur base, killing ur mans, you gotta spawn as fast as you can.

This, I love.
"I'm sorry Herr Andel, but we just didn't feel that your essay was sufficiently convincing. You had a good opening paragraph, and your use of punctuation was flawless, but your concluding paragraph seemed rushed. Your writing style was also needlessly wordy and overused the passive voice. Finally, you failed to reach the 10 page minimum limit. No, its the guns for you boy!"Not too far from the truth, actually. There were times when you could get taken because your reasoning was "too short" and therefore not convincing. Being in part of a Church and being strictly against killing was usually the best way to get out.
And this is why I hate the idea. If you want more soldiers, offer them enough money so that they feel compensated and are willing to join. If they wouldn't do it without you putting a gun to their heads, they shouldn't have to do it.They aren't having guns put to their head are they? :p Seriously now, there's a lot of people that wouldn't have done any social service on their own but loved it afterwards. And the soldiers tend to get paid a lot better than anyone doing Zivildienst. The pay for that varies since the military has nothing to do with it what-so-ever.

I think that conscription would help solve some other social problems by teaching youth things like disipline, true teamwork, giving them marketable skills, and giving some a feeling of self worth for the first time. But i also believe that there are cheaper and easier ways of accomplishing this.

The draft, except in times of great need or dire emergency, is a bad idea. Drafted soldiers for the most part don't want to be there and because they went and someone else didn't, it can lead to a breakdown of order in the ranks. I don't want my life to depend on some whine tit who doesn't want to be there, and i don't want to have to write the letters home when he gets himself or someone else killed.

Right now, the draft would only serve to fill body bags faster. But the far left in the US think that would be a good thing.

I'm in the Army. I have not met one officer or senior NCO who thinks that the draft would be a good thing.

There should be MANDATORY government service for all youth between 18 and 22. Not necessarily military service but government service. It could be in the Peace Corp or the Marine Corps or even Job Corp, the thing is everybody except the extremely handicapped would serve...(why can't a guy in a wheelchair help teach kids to read, or a deaf guy work in a high noise environment??) People with religious objections could be firefighters for the US Parks Service. The better jobs would go to those that volunteered early crappy jobs to those who waited to be called up. The upside would be all this cheap labor would provide the US with the ability to send these same kids to college for free. BUT EVERYBODY HAS TO GO, NO EXCEPTIONS.

There should be MANDATORY government service for all youth between 18 and 22. Not necessarily military service but government service. It could be in the Peace Corp or the Marine Corps or even Job Corp, the thing is everybody except the extremely handicapped would serve...(why can't a guy in a wheelchair help teach kids to read, or a deaf guy work in a high noise environment??) People with religious objections could be firefighters for the US Parks Service. The better jobs would go to those that volunteered early crappy jobs to those who waited to be called up. The upside would be all this cheap labor would provide the US with the ability to send these same kids to college for free. BUT EVERYBODY HAS TO GO, NO EXCEPTIONS.

I like the HeinLien Starship Troopers model. SImilar to yours but it's voluntary and no voting w/o service.

I think that conscription would help solve some other social problems by teaching youth things like disipline, true teamwork, giving them marketable skills, and giving some a feeling of self worth for the first time. But i also believe that there are cheaper and easier ways of accomplishing this.

The draft, except in times of great need or dire emergency, is a bad idea. Drafted soldiers for the most part don't want to be there and because they went and someone else didn't, it can lead to a breakdown of order in the ranks. I don't want my life to depend on some whine tit who doesn't want to be there, and i don't want to have to write the letters home when he gets himself or someone else killed.

Right now, the draft would only serve to fill body bags faster. But the far left in the US think that would be a good thing.

I'm in the Army. I have not met one officer or senior NCO who thinks that the draft would be a good thing.I have a question. Would you be more supportive of a draft that only used draftees for guard puroposes only inside the country from which exemption because of conscientous objection is possible?
While a draft for the US would be foolish, since there's enough usually enough volonteers, it's logical for a couple other countries.

I have a question. Would you be more supportive of a draft that only used draftees for guard puroposes only inside the country from which exemption because of conscientous objection is possible?
While a draft for the US would be foolish, since there's enough usually enough volonteers, it's logical for a couple other countries.

No, because then the National Guard becomes an escape and would be flooded with volinteers in a time of conflict.

i can't comment on any others countries because I don't know enough about thier internal affairs to make a reasoned argument.

That works too.


I like the HeinLien Starship Troopers model. SImilar to yours but it's voluntary and no voting w/o service.

I like the HeinLien Starship Troopers model. SImilar to yours but it's voluntary and no voting w/o service.

The starship troopers model, and god the movie sucked, was that you had to demonstrate that you were willing to put the greater good above your own. Thats why you had to serve in some form to vote or hold public office.

No, because then the National Guard becomes an escape and would be flooded with volinteers in a time of conflict.

i can't comment on any others countries because I don't know enough about thier internal affairs to make a reasoned argument.

Keep Selective Service (JIC) but no draft. The Army doesn't want or need one.

OT: GTC, what's your MOS and where are you stationed?

No, because then the National Guard becomes an escape and would be flooded with volinteers in a time of conflict.

i can't comment on any others countries because I don't know enough about thier internal affairs to make a reasoned argument.

Also because in such a situation an expeditionary campaign is necessary to remove the threat (a la WWII).

Keep Selective Service (JIC) but no draft. The Army doesn't want or need one.

OT: GTC, what's your MOS and where are you stationed?

MOS's; 11B, 19D, 63Z, 63B, 92A

Iowa national guard right now. Just got back from Iraq this spring.

MOS's; 11B, 19D, 63Z, 63B, 92A

Iowa national guard right now. Just got back from Iraq this spring.

Reserves in IL.; 14M Pri., DI in training.

Reserves in IL.; 14M Pri., DI in training.

Sounds like fun. Scouts don't get to play with things like that.

Sounds like fun. Scouts don't get to play with things like that.

I actually haven't touched a Stinger in years. That's what I did when I was in the Guard. I got out in '01 and joined the Reserves last december. They just kept my primary so I could join a training division.

As a dane, I seriously disagree with drafts or conscription. I have that right, because once i'm registering myself in Denmark, they'll send me to a session to check if i'm fit for duty, draw a lot and than either draft me or let me go. I can refuse of course, but four months of military with no risk compared to a year of civil service with no risk, i'd rather have the military.

At least there's no risk, but I find it pointless.

As stated before, people who are drafted or conscripted should under no circumstance be sent to another nation. IF I am drafted or conscripted into the danish army I can be absolutely certain that they will only use me for defensive purposes and that is why I say it's riskfree, I won't be sent off to another nation, i'm not worth sending, they've got better trained volunteer troops for that.

I'd say that conscription is necessary for small countries. Without it they couldn't have a believable defence. Finland for example has a large area to defend compared to the population. You need lots of troops for that and no one can deny that with a volunteer army there would be a whole lot less soldiers even if they got paid good. The United States offers free college education to its soldiers, but in here it's already free, so there'd be less incentive to join in that regard too.

Of course there has to be an option for those who really don't want to be in the military, like the civil service we have. Also, conscripted armies shouldn't wage offensive wars. I'm pretty sure most people would want to defend this country should we come under attack, but in peacetime the military seems pointless and there is low interest towards it.

im all for national service and especially penal legions (although they have to be formed properly) Because in the 1950s British army (i cannot speak on behalf of any other army of course) high levels of respect and disciplin were demanded and so society was a better place unfortunatly standards have long since dropped and binge drinking and burbery have taken over like japanese hog weed.

I'm not quite sure of the difference between a draft and a conscription. Can you illuminate? I'd check wiki, but it says it's down.

Basically it says the term "draft" is simply a US colloquialism for conscription.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscriptiona_in_the_United_States

Today in my Law class we branched off and discussed the potentials of a draft. My argument against it happening was that with the approval levels of the war as low as they are, any politicians would have to be suicidal to institute a draft. There would be rioting, panic and general choas.

One person brought up a different viewpoint. Arguably, the influx of fresh troops would help end the war more quickly, and instead of a draft, make it a general conscription, where all would serve a tour at a certain age. His argument is that there would no longer be a socio-economic imbalance; everyone would serve regardless.

Though I do not agree with the idea of a draft OR a conscription, I can understand where this guy is coming from. The only fair way is a conscription.

What do you think?

AFAIK there has never been a really equitable conscription system, at least in the USA. I'm fairly sure the same goes for the rest of the world. In fact, the inequities of the draft circa Vietnam was a primary cause of conscription's end in the US. There were just too many ways to weasel out of it (witness Clinton and GWBush among many others).

Being a product of conscription myself, I'm all for it as long as conscripted personnel only serve as defensive forces. Also like someone mentioned earlier, conscription need not be just into the military, one can serve as part of the police force or the civil defence forces (medical and emergency services, etc), which they do anyway where I come from. Also, conscripts should be provided with the opportunity to sign on and serve with the regular forces if they choose to.

Funny thing is that before my enlistment, I was so against the whole conscription concept. But my time in the army gave me discipline, direction and focus and I am thankful for that opportunity.