NationStates Jolt Archive

As I live in Finland,I have to go to the Defence Forces(.Note:defense forces,keyword here DEFENCE.)and if I go to the Army and in the army infantry i'm gonna have to use a copy of the AK-47.(i hope i don't have to use some kind of chinese piece of shit).that's assuming i go to a position where i use an assault rifle.then there's the fire support position where i'm gonna use an LMG,the sniper position,the AT position.but enough about the armed forces of Finland.What do you think of conscription?

Opposed with the exception of emergencies. Conscription represents a level of militarism in society that I am not comfortable with.

conscription costs far too much for what it is and undermines at least the British military doctrine of having a small professional army (seeing as how we can't support anything over roughly 100,000)

tbqh looking at kids these days they can't even get out of bed let alone be relied upon to make a good tea

As I live in Finland,I have to go to the Defence Forces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSAr2Sg6qaY

if you have the choice I recommend the air force though seeing as how..well your Internet folk

Opposed with the exception of emergencies. Conscription represents a level of militarism in society that I am not comfortable with.

You can't say that Finland is very militaristic country!

No thanks. If I want to join the armed forces I'll do it myself.

No thanks. If I want to join the armed forces I'll do it myself.

lets say you get really drunk one night...

Is Finnish conscription for both men and women?

You can't say that Finland is very militaristic country!

I'd say it is. Surveys of willingness to defend the country from attack persistently stand at around 80 per cent, which is one of the highest rates in Europe. (http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jwar/jwara154.html)

The defence budget is relatively large for the size of Finland as well, comparable with France and the UK who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Totally against it. As a soldier, it's a matter of pride-if you don't want to be there, get the hell out of my army. As an American, well, we learned what happens with conscription in Vietnam.

I'd say it is. Surveys of willingness to defend the country from attack persistently stand at around 80 per cent, which is one of the highest rates in Europe. (http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jwar/jwara154.html)

so your not horrified that the number is so low for the rest of Europe?

The defence budget is relatively large for the size of Finland as well, comparable with France and the UK who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

so very little (you brought up the SC?) especially considering unlike Britain and France its geared at working alone

Is Finnish conscription for both men and women?

no,only men are forced.women can join and after 45 days they can leave without repercussions.but if you don't leave it's the time as for men:6,9 or 12 months.Here's the wiki article on conscription in Finland:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland

if you have the choice I recommend the air force though seeing as how..well your Internet folk

i don't have a choice,if i learn how to fly there's a high possibility,that I go to the Air Force.to pilot a F-18C Hornet.

Conscription's a bloody terrible idea. Glad we got rid of it so long ago.

As stated by Ifreann, I'd do it myself if I wanted to join the armed forces.

so your not horrified that the number is so low for the rest of Europe?

Not really. Would you be at the recruiting office tomorrow if Britain went to war today?

so very little (you brought up the SC?) especially considering unlike Britain and France its geared at working alone

Britain, France and Finland all have high defence budgets as far as Europe goes. By worldwide standards its not that high but Western Europe and Scandinavia aren't exactly politically unstable. Britain and France have the need to project power abroad - partly to justify their membership of the Security Council - while Finland does not.

i don't have a choice,if i learn how to fly there's a high possibility,that I go to the Air Force.to pilot a F-18C Hornet.

well the idea is you get some cushy job on the ground that basically has you watching TV all day (not my cup of tea but each to their own)

I've always secretly admired the folks who plan these things out well:wink:

Britain and France have the need to project power abroad - partly to justify their membership of the Security Council - while Finland does not.

Finland's military budjet is justified with our military strategies.all of our military strategies are based on defending us with no outside help.also conscription is in our constitution.

The defence budget is relatively large for the size of Finland as well, comparable with France and the UK who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

I'm assuming you mean as a percentage of GDP, as the defence budget of France or the UK is about 25 times that of Finland.

Finland's military budjet is justified with our military strategies.all of our military strategies are based on defending us with no outside help.
Seems a bit paranoid, although I suppose you do have Russia to the east, not a prospect I'd like.

I'm assuming you mean as a percentage of GDP, as the defence budget of France or the UK is about 25 times that of Finland.

Of course.

Finland's military budjet is justified with our military strategies.all of our military strategies are based on defending us with no outside help.also conscription is in our constitution.

I'm not disputing whether its justified, I'm just saying that its high for the region.

Not really. Would you be at the recruiting office tomorrow if Britain went to war today?

I've already been to the recruiting office and now spend my time dicking about on weekends for such an eventuality :p

its scary because in the event of an attack on Britain the population thinks that a miracle will somehow occur

Britain, France and Finland all have high defence budgets as far as Europe goes. By worldwide standards its not that high but Western Europe and Scandinavia aren't exactly politically unstable. Britain and France have the need to project power abroad - partly to justify their membership of the Security Council - while Finland does not.

Finland is not a member of any defensive blocs and as such has to actually worry about defending their territory instead of having uncle Sam pay the bills

I'd refuse if ever conscripted, so to be consistent I must oppose the idea. I'd rather be in jail. What with being a pacifist and all that. I couldn't give a flying fudge if the country is under attack from satanic communazis, I ain't fighting for no-one:p

I'd refuse if ever conscripted, so to be consistent I must oppose the idea. I'd rather be in jail. What with being a pacifist and all that. I couldn't give a flying fudge if the country is under attack from satanic communazis, I ain't fighting for no-one:p

what are satanic communazis?

its scary because in the event of an attack on Britain the population thinks that a miracle will somehow occur


AKA Uncle Sam will come to save the day? :tongue:

lets say you get really drunk one night...

I don't think the military would have use for me, unless they were hungry.

Not really. Would you be at the recruiting office tomorrow if Britain went to war today?



Britain, France and Finland all have high defence budgets as far as Europe goes. By worldwide standards its not that high but Western Europe and Scandinavia aren't exactly politically unstable. Britain and France have the need to project power abroad - partly to justify their membership of the Security Council - while Finland does not.
No, Finland just has a gigantic neighbor next door who has been threatening them for many, many decades and has recently invaded another country it has been sending threats to for a long time.

While I thing conscription is going slightly overboard, Finland has plenty of justification for its strong military.

AKA Uncle Sam will come to save the day? :tongue:

only if we can't do something with Canada :)

I've already been to the recruiting office and now spend my time dicking about on weekends for such an eventuality :p

its scary because in the event of an attack on Britain the population thinks that a miracle will somehow occur

But a lot of people wouldn't and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Finland is not a member of any defensive blocs and as such has to actually worry about defending their territory instead of having uncle Sam pay the bills

Once again, I'm not saying that their defense spending is unnecessary, I'm saying that it is high.

No, Finland just has a gigantic neighbor next door who has been threatening them for many, many decades and has recently invaded another country it has been sending threats to for a long time.

While I thing conscription is going slightly overboard, Finland has plenty of justification for its strong military.

Third time now, I'm not saying its not justified I'm saying that it is high.

what are satanic communazis?

Imagine if a group combined all that was evil in communism with all that was evil in nazism and, for bonus evil points, also worshipped Satan. What I am saying is, even if such a group invaded Britain, I honestly wouldn't even consider fighting.

I am against conscription because its the general populace being forced to fight for a cause they don't want too because of the whim of a small minority (government)

only if we can't do something with Canada :)

lol. Fair enough.

Really though, I think you (and everybody else who says this, too) are underestimating the patriotism in your respective countries. I can assure you that if London went up in a Russian mushroom cloud tomorrow (just throwing out a country, don't jump my ass), you would get lots of young men walking, nay running, to the recruiters. It happened in the U.S. after 9/11, and I imagine it is similar in the U.K. Or Germany, or France, or any country.

I am against conscriptions and drafts because it forces people to give up their lives for causes they might not believe in. If there was a war to be fought that would actually be worthy of my life, I would join as a volunteer. BTW, is there a two yr requirement to join the army in finland? like you have to serve for at least two yrs in your lifetime? ive heard of this happeneing before in other countries i think.....

I am against conscriptions and drafts because it forces people to give up their lives for causes they might not believe in. If there was a war to be fought that would actually be worthy of my life, I would join as a volunteer. BTW, is there a two yr requirement to join the army in finland? like you have to serve for at least two yrs in your lifetime? ive heard of this happeneing before in other countries i think.....

no,but there are refresher courses,that last 40,75 or 100 days,depending on rank.there's a link to a wiki article about conscription in Finland on the first page of this thread.

I am for conscriptions. It is a persons duty to serve their country.

I am for conscriptions. It is a persons duty to serve their country.
Only if they want to, especially if I was to be dragged off on a war I didn't agree with. Sod would I go to Iraq.

I am for conscriptions. It is a persons duty to serve their country.

Why? Citizens pay enough for public services through tax. People cannot morally be obliged to fight and potentially lay down their lives for a war which they do not agree with.

slavery is bad, m'kay?

slavery is bad, m'kay?

i don't think it's slavery.for example we get paid.and i like guns.

Why? Citizens pay enough for public services through tax. People cannot morally be obliged to fight and potentially lay down their lives for a war which they do not agree with.

What if your country dose not have enought troops. What if most people said no to joing the military? Than when your country is invaded none of your people have the military traing to defend themsleves. Some people may not like it, I can understand that. However, when you have a hug area to defend you need a large force to protect it.

i don't think it's slavery.for example we get paid.and i like guns.

slavery is not defined by the absence of wage. It's defined by the absence of the ability to say no.

What if your country dose not have enought troops. What if most people said no to joing the military? Than when your country is invaded none of your people have the military traing to defend themsleves. Some people may not like it, I can understand that. However, when you have a hug area to defend you need a large force to protect it.

If most people say no, then clearly those in charge must not be governing sufficiently in accordance with the people's wishes to secure their loyalty. If a state is failing to that degree, someone else taking over isn't really a big deal, and is probably a good thing.

I've never liked the idea of conscription outside of a massive war where the manpower is needed. otherwise I want payed professionals who actually wanted to join up and weren't forced.

But a lot of people wouldn't and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

you don't see anything wrong with not being arsed to protect X thing?

Once again, I'm not saying that their defense spending is unnecessary, I'm saying that it is high.

high in comparison to what? you can't just go about comparing Finland to western Europe because its a completely different situation with much of the cost covered by the US

What I am saying is, even if such a group invaded Britain, I honestly wouldn't even consider fighting.

what would you do?

I am against conscription because its the general populace being forced to fight for a cause they don't want too because of the whim of a small minority (government)

and if it isn't a small minority?

It happened in the U.S. after 9/11, and I imagine it is similar in the U.K. Or Germany, or France, or any country.

its an American phenomenon.

In Europe those of service age are far too busy hurling abuse at anyone who dares where a uniform and pretending they are in the IRA

Only if they want to, especially if I was to be dragged off on a war I didn't agree with. Sod would I go to Iraq.

what if all your friends went?

Why? Citizens pay enough for public services through tax.

tax is not the only function of government

People cannot morally be obliged to fight and potentially lay down their lives for a war which they do not agree with.

not even to save lives? (as is the governments primary responsibility what with all the protecting its citizens)

slavery is not defined by the absence of wage. It's defined by the absence of the ability to say no.

you can say no to conscription :tongue:

Conscripts make great cannon fodder in a war... so I'm all for it! To be serious though, conscription gives kids much needed discipline and values. While use of conscripts as an offensive force is a little iffy with me, conscript defense forces are a great idea!

you can say no to conscription :tongue:

To a roughly same extent a slave could say no to working the fields.

you can say no to conscription :tongue:

yeah,we have un-armed service in Finland.

what would you do?

If a nation was attacking the UK, and I felt their worldview was sufficiently "evil", I would volunteer to do work on the 'home front' to help the war effort. I could never kill another person, so training me militarily and sending me out to fight would be pretty much a waste of time anyway. I have no problem with working in factories to help the war effort in this situation, I just would not be willing to fight myself. If it was not an evidently just war in my eyes, I would refuse to help in any way, even economic. I am unwilling to volunteer for any military training, as that would give the impression that I was willing to fight.

I don't mind it if people can choose when the enter to carry out offensive jobs or non combat roles (medical stuff and such). The Army, Navy & Air Force have lots of jobs that don't require you to actually pick up a gun and fight some Vodka drinking Commies.

not even to save lives? (as is the governments primary responsibility what with all the protecting its citizens)

Lives would be saved by not fighting in the first place...unless its against genocidal maniacs attacking your country, in which case people could be considered to have a duty to help the war effort in some economic manner at least, but not to potentially lay down their lives, because no institution can legitimately compel someone to do that, as people own their own bodies. Its a matter of individual conscience. And if enough people to repel the attack can't be found on a voluntary basis, its pretty likely its not a just war anyway. And if they aren't attacking your country, the government protecting its own citizens thing doesn't apply anyway

Even if Finland conscripted every one of its citizens it could still not stop Russia invading, in reality no small country can stand alone against a much larger aggressor.

Even if Finland conscripted every one of its citizens it could still not stop Russia invading, in reality no small country can stand alone against a much larger aggressor.

like in the Winter War?

like in the Winter War?

Well Stalin had messed up his army by executing most of the officers. So today Finland wouldn't last a day, in my opinion.

you don't see anything wrong with not being arsed to protect X thing?

That depends entirely on what that thing is and what I'm protecting it from.

high in comparison to what? you can't just go about comparing Finland to western Europe because its a completely different situation with much of the cost covered by the US

What do you mean the cost is covered by the US?

And yes, I can compare it to Western Europe - the point I was making is that Finland is more militarised than its non-conscripting neighbours and I feel that I have illustrated that.

I oppose conscription. I'm not willing to become an agent of the state, and I'm unsure why anyone else would either.

I also oppose sexism, and all or nearly all conscription laws are sexist.

Even if Finland conscripted every one of its citizens it could still not stop Russia invading, in reality no small country can stand alone against a much larger aggressor.

The Finnish-Soviet winter war during WW2 disagrees with you.

The Finnish-Soviet winter war during WW2 disagrees with you.

or just Winter War,or ''Talvisota'' in finnish

Well Stalin had messed up his army by executing most of the officers. So today Finland wouldn't last a day, in my opinion.

The Finnish-Soviet winter war during WW2 disagrees with you.

See above. The world has changed, military technology has moved on, it is much harder to resist an invasion from a country that has a much larger budget than you do, than it was 70 years ago.

I'm pretty convinced that if a cause is worth fighting for, people won't need to be forced to fight for it.

As I live in Finland,I have to go to the Defence Forces(.Note:defense forces,keyword here DEFENCE.)and if I go to the Army and in the army infantry i'm gonna have to use a copy of the AK-47.(i hope i don't have to use some kind of chinese piece of shit).that's assuming i go to a position where i use an assault rifle.then there's the fire support position where i'm gonna use an LMG,the sniper position,the AT position.but enough about the armed forces of Finland.What do you think of conscription?

No thank you I had better things to do with my life post high school that were both more interesting and useful to me as well as my country receiving more out of me. It was hard enough to to do at the time and maintain the will to finish ... I dont need to add a couple year break in the middle then have to come back and try to pickup where I left off

I have seen what happens to people that do that ...

No thanks

slavery is bad, m'kay?

I dispute this. ;)

No thank you I had better things to do with my life post high school that were both more interesting and useful to me as well as my country receiving more out of me. It was hard enough to to do at the time and maintain the will to finish ... I dont need to add a couple year break in the middle then have to come back and try to pickup where I left off

I have seen what happens to people that do that ...

No thanks

you can postpone it if you have studies,work or other
personal reasons.

It is a nessecity for a major war, conscription beforehand will allow trained reserves to be ready immediately for service, and it teaches the youth discipline, survival, and nationalistic fervour. It provides employment, and serves as an referance for ones resume. It also encourages physical fitness.

There is no downside, unless you listen to silly pacifists and their like, but I'm sure they will be gunned down at border as they attempt to draftdodge.

There is no downside, unless you listen to silly pacifists and their like, but I'm sure they will be gunned down at border as they attempt to draftdodge.

I'm not a pacifist. I don't want to go and die. That and the army has better things to spend money on such as new equipment and such.

And I doubt Finland shoots draftdodgers.

I'm not a pacifist. I don't want to go and die. That and the army has better things to spend money on such as new equipment and such.

And I doubt Finland shoots draftdodgers.

as,i said there's a non-armed possibility

I'm not a pacifist. I don't want to go and die. That and the army has better things to spend money on such as new equipment and such.

And I doubt Finland shoots draftdodgers.


The army will always need old fashioned grunts with a gun and bayonet to take the land.

And frankly everyone dies, it is an inevitability, so why not leave a beautiful young corpse on the battlefield and a medal for your family to remember you by? Instead of rotting in some retirement home.

it teaches the youth discipline,

So do parents, one would think. I'm unsure why it suddenly becomes the government's job.

survival,

Because surviving in the wilderness is such a useful skill these days.

and nationalistic fervour.

How is this a good thing? Nationalistic fervor has been responsible for more ills than I can think of. We need less of this artificial construct called "nationalism", not more.

It provides employment,

So do the jobs I choose of my own free will.

and serves as an referance for ones resume. It also encourages physical fitness.

I've heard this line before, "mandatory military service will give everyone employment experience and make them more marketable!" but there's a flaw in that analogy. Marketable experience is great in the workforce because it gives you skills and, most importantly, makes you stand out from the rest. Employers pick the most qualified, and having ksills and experience others don't helps make you more qualified. But if everyone has those skills, then you don't get the benefit of that experience. It doesn't make you stand out, since EVERYONE has done the exact same thing.

There is no downside.

Unless you're like me and don't wish to be a slave.

Look, there are good sides and bad sides to being in the military. If you think the positives outweigh the negatives, then go join the military. But don't try to make that choice for me.

Wonderful. luckily for me the UK has armed forces which don't have time for poorly trained cannon fodder.

as,i said there's a non-armed possibility

that's nice. If you feel that is the career path for you, feel free to pursue it. But again, don't try to make that choice for me.

And frankly everyone dies, it is an inevitability, so why not leave a beautiful young corpse on the battlefield and a medal for your family to remember you by?

I think my family would prefer to remember me through me actually being alive.

I dispute this. ;)

different kind :p

And frankly everyone dies, it is an inevitability, so why not leave a beautiful young corpse on the battlefield and a medal for your family to remember you by? Instead of rotting in some retirement home.


You see, no son of a bitch ever won a war by leaving a "beautiful young corpse" on the battlefield. He won it by making the other son of a bitch leave a "beautiful young corpse".

And most of those corpses also aren't beautiful. Decayed, rotten, mutilated, covered in insects and rodents.

As a person who has a cousin getting ready to deploy in Iraq with the Paratrooper regiment, I find your remarks offensive and stupid.

The army will always need old fashioned grunts with a gun and bayonet to take the land.


Not when they have well trained PROFESSIONALS to do it.

You have no idea how wars are fought do you? Typical old fashioned stupidity that cost so many lives in WWI & WWII/

You have no idea how wars are fought do you? Typical old fashioned stupidity that cost so many lives in WWI & WWII/

You mean...we don't affix bayonets and charge the trenches while Edith Piaf plays from a gramophone?

Because surviving in the wilderness is such a useful skill these days.

You never know when you may need it. It's still a good skill to have.

How is this a good thing? Nationalistic fervor has been responsible for more ills than I can think of. We need less of this artificial construct called "nationalism", not more

It has also been responsible for a few good things, like the unification of a few nations, and decolonialism, if you consider that a good thing.

Nationalistic peoples are also more willing to defend their homes against foreigners, as well as forcing their ideologies upon lesser nations.

So do the jobs I choose of my own free will.
During wartime, the demand for soldiers will quickly outpace the demand for any other jobs. It is better to have soldiers trained beforehand and available on demand, rather then training them anew.

Also conscription is usually only 1-2 years, after that you are free to make your own decision. Consider it as paying your debt to the community that raised you.


I've heard this line before, "mandatory military service will give everyone employment experience and make them more marketable!" but there's a flaw in that analogy. Marketable experience is great in the workforce because it gives you skills and, most importantly, makes you stand out from the rest. Employers pick the most qualified, and having ksills and experience others don't helps make you more qualified. But if everyone has those skills, then you don't get the benefit of that experience. It doesn't make you stand out, since EVERYONE has done the exact same thing.
Employers will have another referance to call. Military service can be very tasking and I am sure most employers would be interested how you fare in such situations. They will also be interested in your promotions and merits you have achieved during your term, or whether you spent most your time whinging and complaining about the abuse.


Unless you're like me and don't wish to be a slave.
If you consider that slavery, then so is education, and work for that matter.

Look, there are good sides and bad sides to being in the military. If you think the positives outweigh the negatives, then go join the military. But don't try to make that choice for me.
But it'll be much more enjoyable to have you beside me:wink: The more the merrier, or at least more folks the enemy would shoot at rather then me alone.

Conscripts make great cannon fodder in a war... so I'm all for it! To be serious though, conscription gives kids much needed discipline and values. While use of conscripts as an offensive force is a little iffy with me, conscript defense forces are a great idea!
Since when has the government been responsible for raising children?
It is a nessecity for a major war, conscription beforehand will allow trained reserves to be ready immediately for service, and it teaches the youth discipline, survival, and nationalistic fervour. It provides employment, and serves as an referance for ones resume. It also encourages physical fitness.
See above.
The army will always need old fashioned grunts with a gun and bayonet to take the land.

And frankly everyone dies, it is an inevitability, so why not leave a beautiful young corpse on the battlefield and a medal for your family to remember you by? Instead of rotting in some retirement home.

How my family remember me and the appearance of my corpse are none of my concern. I'm not going to throw my life away because some old men in suits, REMFs is the American military's term of endearment I believe, tell me I should, nor because someone tells me it's my duty.

You see, no son of a bitch ever won a war by leaving a "beautiful young corpse" on the battlefield. He won it by making the other son of a bitch leave a "beautiful young corpse".

And most of those corpses also aren't beautiful. Decayed, rotten, mutilated, covered in insects and rodents.

As a person who has a cousin getting ready to deploy in Iraq with the Paratrooper regiment, I find your remarks offensive and stupid.



Not when they have well trained PROFESSIONALS to do it.

You have no idea how wars are fought do you? Typical old fashioned stupidity that cost so many lives in WWI & WWII/

Actually wars are typically won by siezing territory, rather then casualties. Causing casualties generally help, but otherwise it is the capture of strategic locations that are vital. And I consider Patton a second rate general anyways.

It was an idealistic potrayl to make you feel better about dying.

If you really cared, you would be beside him. I myself have a half-sister in Afghanistan, and my father was a peacekeeper in Yugoslavia a few decades ago.


Trained proffessionals die from a bullet the same as a green conscript.

Also conscription allows the military to take the cream of the nations manpower, rather then relying on those silly enough to actually volunteer.

Also the Axis powers did quite a good job using conscriptsm and likewise the Allies had to counterback using conscription.

You mean...we don't affix bayonets and charge the trenches while Edith Piaf plays from a gramophone?

We don't, sah, we send the lower classes to do it for us while we have a spot of tea.

Since when has the government been responsible for raising children?

Since the establishment of public education, and possibly since the beginning of the religion.


How my family remember me and the appearance of my corpse are none of my concern. I'm not going to throw my life away because some old men in suits, REMFs is the American military's term of endearment I believe, tell me I should, nor because someone tells me it's my duty.

Thats simply the matter that you do not believe in your own government, and assuming that you will die or even be sent to war. Surprisingly as we have seen in WW2, civilians are much more likely to die then a soldier.

Personally I oppose all of those old men in suits, and all the logistics and support units. Everyone in the military should serve a term as a frontline grunt before advancing to another position so they understand the position of the common soldier.