NationStates Jolt Archive

NS doesn't seem to have any serious threads anymore which scares me so naturally...

No this thread isn't about Iran/Iraq/Saturday night in Manchester, its about What you think of the governments ability to institute a draft in times of hardship? Now I guess I should set up a hypothetical scenario because some of you happen to live in horrible places like Portugal and Egypt (:wink:):

Everything is dandy in your homeland, the geese don't want to leave in winter and the biggest issue currently facing the government is the amount of happy couples cluttering the sidewalks cutting down lampposts for daring to oppose their love...

Unfortunately the state of [insert the worst place on Earth here] doesn't take a liking to all this love and happiness across its border choosing to invade with its army of Polish cooks! Quickly pushing your army back the government convenes to institute a draft as a last resort but will you the person support it? what of the pacifists, will they be imprisoned?

The draft is nothing less than slavery, except the slave is forced to kill, so it is considered different.

Yeah, If someone's invadin my shit, Im definitely going to fight them back...

The draft is nothing less than slavery, except the slave is forced to kill, so it is considered different.

even if said slavery is for the greater good? hell is paying taxes slavery too?

even if said slavery is for the greater good? hell is paying taxes slavery too?

On this forum, that's almost flamebaiting :D

On this forum, that's almost flamebaiting :D

well I never said anything about escaping slavery through error that is totally not your fault and the check is in the mail :wink:

I'll support the draft only if a law is introduced to make the sons and daughters of currently serving politicians the group sent off to war first, so there can be no dodging or deals to keep them out. If they're willing to send their own, only then will I be convinced that the threat is real and not a big pile of doo-doo.

Edit: Yeh. I forgot to read the thread. If someone's invaded your own country, then in that circumstance drafting would seem reasonable.

A hostile, foreign army on your own soil is a very good reason to institute a draft. But when the conflict is on the other side of the planet, it is not.

I'll support the draft only if a law is introduced to make the sons and daughters of currently serving politicians the group sent off to war first, so there can be no dodging or deals to keep them out. If they're willing to send their own, only then will I be convinced that the threat is real and not a big pile of doo-doo.

in the past 10,000 years of human history have the powerful ever not managed to get out of it somehow? you may as well say "I'll go to work when the rich go to work" for all it means :p

But when the conflict is on the other side of the planet, it is not.

what about if said conflict is to protect somebody else's lovely land of lovely? what of solidarity?

Coming from a country that still has the draft, let me tell you this: It sucks.

For various reasons.

1) Not everyone eligible for the draft is indeed drafted.
2) It excludes the women.
3) It's an outdated system yet heavily relied on because of the people who consciously object serving the military and do something else instead (Hospitals, kindergartens, etc. depend on conchies).

Instead, establish something like a mandatory year of service with the option to serve in the armed forces. Turn it around. And include the women, too. Equal rights means equal responsibility.

A hostile, foreign army on your own soil is a very good reason to institute a draft. But when the conflict is on the other side of the planet, it is not.

"Your soil" has become somewhat vague when it concerns the glorious US of A. ;)

SNIP

thats national service honey :wink:

thats national service honey :wink:
What is?
What I proposed?

Because we do have that thing called draft that puts you into the military, but you can opt out and serve your community otherwise.

(And what's with the honey?!?)

I vote that we have a draft limited to highly unpopular ex-presidents that are probably part-monkey. *nodnod*

even if said slavery is for the greater good?

Do I detect a closet colonialist?

Drafts are useful when the need arises for one, as has happened most of the times in the past (both World Wars, the American Civil War, etc.). It should only be allowed in time of actual need for homeland defense, and the rich and powerful will always opt out. Hell, look at the medical requirements, so many can just pay off a doctor to fill out a report that they're unfit...
And I agree with the men and women part, it should be equal. But the draft, unlike how it was used in Vietnam, should be reserved for a national emergency only. Not defending someone on the opposite side of the war because they happen to be a good political supporter. While I agree that sometimes the country needs to step up to protect innocents in other countries, the draft should not be included in this.

In the event of being invaded a draft is the best way to go on the basis of that people are going to defend their homes, so why not train them to do so effectively? Without a draft in that case there would be armies of dumb scared angry citizens running the streets killing more of each other than the enemy. If a country can train this mob of citizens into a fighting force then the country has a much better chance of repelling the invasion and taking to the offensive.

In the event that someone's dumb enough to invade the US and we can't crush them, many nukes will fly through the air. So no, there's no need to draft innocent people.

I vote that we have a draft limited to highly unpopular ex-presidents that are probably part-monkey. *nodnod*He dodged shoes, he can dodge bullets.

I would only train guerrilla units. The amount of guerrilla's you actually need is so few, and I believe that many people would sign up, so a draft would be completely unnecessary.

But, Polish invading? Come on!:p

In the event that someone's dumb enough to invade the US and we can't crush them, many nukes will fly through the air. So no, there's no need to draft innocent people.

Sorry but nukes are a completely useless weapon. The only power it has is the thought that comes with its use. In the United States we have a strong enough and well enough regulated force that in the event of an invasion there is no need for the extra draft. But in most other countries where an innumerable military is far from real, the draft would be a savior in an invasion.

*waits for someone to argue that the draft violates the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution*

*searches for previous posts crushing that argument*

even if said slavery is for the greater good? hell is paying taxes slavery too?
Paying taxes doesn't kill you. o.o

Bu-but... the draft violates the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution!

And to think otherwise is Un-American,so don't you dare TCT!

Paying taxes doesn't kill you. o.o

Tell that to my grandfather.

Tell that to my grandfather.
What do you mean?

Well, if it's the choice between a draft, or immanent destruction of your nation, then a draft seems preferable.

What do you mean?

Well he didn't die defending his country so it must have been the taxes that got him years later. :p

On more serious note, as said before a well designed draft certainly isn't any more harmful to a country than the said invasion taking place.

Bu-but... the draft violates the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution!

And to think otherwise is Un-American,so don't you dare TCT!

We arent speaking in specifically american terms. or at least i am not, and even in the case of the united states in the event of a large scale invasion where our military would not suffice (god forbid) then there would be proposition of highly encouraged enrollment in the military if not a draft.

Well he didn't die defending his country so it must have been the taxes that got him years later. :p
I'd think his death would've been more so due to old age than due to taxes. Unless taxes made his life slightly more stressful. In which case, they probably made someone else's life slightly less stressful.

I'd think his death would've been more so due to old age than due to taxes. Unless taxes made his life slightly more stressful. In which case, they probably made someone else's life slightly less stressful.

Social welfare in the U.S. is a joke. They just made rich people less stressed because they earn $2.5 million a year instead of $2.3 million.

Well, if it's the choice between a draft, or immanent destruction of your nation, then a draft seems preferable.

I guess it would really depend on if you wanted the destruction of your nation or not.....

Sorry but nukes are a completely useless weapon. The only power it has is the thought that comes with its use. In the United States we have a strong enough and well enough regulated force that in the event of an invasion there is no need for the extra draft. But in most other countries where an innumerable military is far from real, the draft would be a savior in an invasion.

Maybe so, but is the US itself gets invaded and nukes aren't used, there'll be rioting in the streets. I personally agree that a nuke-free world would be much better, but...

Maybe so, but is the US itself gets invaded and nukes aren't used, there'll be rioting in the streets. I personally agree that a nuke-free world would be much better, but...

Trust me, there are enough pacifists and liberals in the US that if we used nukes even in self defence the president of the time would be eaten alive. and i understand that a nuke free world is ideal but really impractical at this day in age where the super weapon defines a country's foreign power.

I'll be against it until they start drafting women too.

I'll be against it until they start drafting women too.

Its only fair. I agree that women should be drafted; however, i am not against an emergency draft.

We have compulsory military service - aka draft - anyway. But who would go to war with Brazil? (Except Argentina on the football field)

Sorry but nukes are a completely useless weapon. The only power it has is the thought that comes with its use. In the United States we have a strong enough and well enough regulated force that in the event of an invasion there is no need for the extra draft. But in most other countries where an innumerable military is far from real, the draft would be a savior in an invasion.

In most other countries the size of the military is also much larger in comparison to the size of the country. Yes, our military could defend almost all of the major cities, but if a nation has the funds and equipment to get past our Navy, Air Force, Coastal Defense, etc. and manages to get inside our country's borders, it's going to have to be either a draft right before or Red Dawn.

In most other countries the size of the military is also much larger in comparison to the size of the country. Yes, our military could defend almost all of the major cities, but if a nation has the funds and equipment to get past our Navy, Air Force, Coastal Defense, etc. and manages to get inside our country's borders, it's going to have to be either a draft right before or Red Dawn.

This is true, but by the time they surpassed all of the primary forces, the national guard and reserve troops would be fresh and ready to finish the job and there will be more volunteers on the run.

This is true, but by the time they surpassed all of the primary forces, the national guard and reserve troops would be fresh and ready to finish the job and there will be more volunteers on the run.
Valid point, I don't know the number of Reservists and NG. I'm going to say the best bet would still be post-invasion guerrilla warfare. That's what I'd be doing, at least.

Valid point, I don't know the number of Reservists and NG. I'm going to say the best bet would still be post-invasion guerrilla warfare. That's what I'd be doing, at least.

Well in the case of a defense it wouldnt be standard "hold the line" warfare. We do only have limited reserve forces so we would have to use them very wisely and guerrilla warfare would be the only way to effective way to combat a force so huge it could breach our borders. We would need a lot of large scale ambushes and bait and switch tactics in order to repel and launch a counter-offensive with enough troops to buy time to rebuild our forces to a point where a full scale counter invasion could be enacted in which case we start negotiations for a cease fire.

Well in the case of a defense it wouldnt be standard "hold the line" warfare. We do only have limited reserve forces so we would have to use them very wisely and guerrilla warfare would be the only way to effective way to combat a force so huge it could breach our borders. We would need a lot of large scale ambushes and bait and switch tactics in order to repel and launch a counter-offensive with enough troops to buy time to rebuild our forces to a point where a full scale counter invasion could be enacted in which case we start negotiations for a cease fire.
I'm speechless, that was awesome.:D

I'm speechless, that was awesome.:D

Thank you, battle tactics are a bit of my thing.

Thank you, battle tactics are a bit of my thing.
I can see that, I need to go back to college, I'm getting rusty.

I can see that, I need to go back to college, I'm getting rusty.

Haha im only 16, i still have 2 years till college!

Nice, I was the same way at that age, experiences have limited my scope in such matters. I can plan a squad or platoon-level battle plan, but the big stuff starts to elude me. And my spelling has gone to hell and my IQ dropping 20 points.

Yes I would support it, and no, I'd just have the pacifists unemployable by the government (with the exception of doctors) for 10 years after the war.

1. this:
The draft is nothing less than slavery, except the slave is forced to kill, so it is considered different.

2. If a nation is invaded, there is no time for boot camp. A draft won't work - only a volunteer militia that has already trained is suitable for defense.

3. The greatest defense is a well-armed civilian population. Foreign powers know invasion is too dangerous, and the government knows that tyranny isn't going to last very long.

*edit* BTW, I was hoping this was a chance for me to show off my insane AutoCAD skillz. :(

Trust me, there are enough pacifists and liberals in the US that if we used nukes even in self defence the president of the time would be eaten alive. and i understand that a nuke free world is ideal but really impractical at this day in age where the super weapon defines a country's foreign power.
Yes, a president in a time of war is about to be assailed by...err... pacifists?

"SIR THE HIPPIE OVEREDUCATED PACIFISTS ARE ATTACKING"
"For fuck's sakes, shoot them before they reveal their hilarious Give Pea's A Chance tee-shirts and giggle to each other about it"
"FAIR ENOUGH SIR"
*kerblammo*
"Aye eat that you nerdy bastards"

It creates shitty soldiers with low morale.

It creates shitty soldiers with low morale.
Rather that than an entire shitty country with low morale tbqh.

Rather that than an entire shitty country with low morale tbqh.
Even better

Yes I would support it, and no, I'd just have the pacifists unemployable by the government (with the exception of doctors) for 10 years after the war.

I wouldn't.

I would however, have the make social pariahs of the collaborators, which would most likely be officials.

I wouldn't.

I would however, have the make social pariahs of the collaborators, which would most likely be officials.
By not supporting a draft to save your country, you are a collaborator in its downfall.

even if said slavery is for the greater good? hell is paying taxes slavery too?
Taxes are extortion, the draft is slavery. The sensible alternative is to make survival and combat training a part of the curriculum in public schools and issue assault rifles and a box of sealed ammunition to all fit members of society to be used only in the event of invasion. Basically the Swiss Army-styled militia.

Taxes are extortion, the draft is slavery. The sensible alternative is to make survival and combat training a part of the curriculum in public schools and issue assault rifles and a box of sealed ammunition to all fit members of society to be used only in the event of invasion. Basically the Swiss Army-styled militia.

Didn't know the swiss did that...

Didn't know the swiss did that...

Neither did I. Not only are their mountains deadly, so are their fourth graders!

All able-bodied male Swiss citizens are conscripted to the armed forces until the age of 30 and are issued assault rifles and a sealed box of ammo to be used only when called up.

By not supporting a draft to save your country, you are a collaborator in its downfall.

:rolleyes:

Did you see my other post where I said I supported guerilla warfare, thereby making a draft unnecessary.

Drafts are also pretty useless in a situation where you're invaded, since you don't have enough time to properly train people. Small professional armies with guerilla tactics can do a hell a lot of more damage with an eight-teen year old and a rifle. This also stretches your money a lot farther, and doesn't kill large swathes of your populace.

EDIT: However I do like the idea of training via schools, but allowing an opt-out for conscientious objectors, because I actually believe in freedom. Drafts are slavery.

All able-bodied male Swiss citizens are conscripted to the armed forces until the age of 30 and are issued assault rifles and a sealed box of ammo to be used only when called up.I believe that the ammunition is no longer issued, since there isn't a huge chance these days that conscripts will be attacked en route to their rally points.

Neither did I. Not only are their mountains deadly, so are their fourth graders!

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/images/babyterrorist.png

conscription is slavery. it isn't even voluntary indenture. the use of credit is that.

so i guess if one is not against being on the short end of slavery themselves, well to each ones own.

personally i'm against the killing of large numbers of people en masse for political gain, or economic, or any other such nonsense. that's the problem with the whole concept of soverignty. there's a simpler name for 'continuation of government'. its called tyranny. (and just as much so, reguardless of what idiology, or anything else, is used as an excuse for it)

Yes, but only under the circumstances that the country has engaged in a total war scenario (ie all productivity is dedicated towards the war effort) due to a literal fight for it's very survival. Both world wars are obviously classic examples of when this happened in the UK. And in this case both men and women should be conscripted certainly, but also conscription will not just involve military service. People will also be needed for all levels of production, from the farms to feed the army and workers, the factories producing equipment, the mines/oil rigs for energy, the merchant navy to import supplies (assuming you're not completely bloackaded) etc... Therefore, pacifists should be expected to contribute, even if they don't pick up a gun.

Yes, if your country is currently occupied, guerilla forces will be better, but you will also need a significant force to eventually push the invaders out, assuming you still have strongholds (eg as mentioned our current forces may be able to hold several of the cities but not the whole country). Though the backbone of this should be your professional army, by this point they will have taken significant casualties and require reinforcements. Guerilla and resistance fighters are great for disruption, tying up large amounts of troops and basically making it very difficult to effectively occupy the country but to actually win and beat back the invaders you will need more conventional forces.

But under any other circumstances than a total fight for a countries survival use of a professional army will be significantly more effective, certainly if you are fighting abroad.

Yes, but only under the circumstances that the country has engaged in a total war scenario (ie all productivity is dedicated towards the war effort) due to a literal fight for it's very survival. Both world wars are obviously classic examples of when this happened in the UK. And in this case both men and women should be conscripted certainly, but also conscription will not just involve military service. People will also be needed for all levels of production, from the farms to feed the army and workers, the factories producing equipment, the mines/oil rigs for energy, the merchant navy to import supplies (assuming you're not completely bloackaded) etc... Therefore, pacifists should be expected to contribute, even if they don't pick up a gun.

Yes, if your country is currently occupied, guerilla forces will be better, but you will also need a significant force to eventually push the invaders out, assuming you still have strongholds (eg as mentioned our current forces may be able to hold several of the cities but not the whole country). Though the backbone of this should be your professional army, by this point they will have taken significant casualties and require reinforcements. Guerilla and resistance fighters are great for disruption, tying up large amounts of troops and basically making it very difficult to effectively occupy the country but to actually win and beat back the invaders you will need more conventional forces.

But under any other circumstances than a total fight for a countries survival use of a professional army will be significantly more effective, certainly if you are fighting abroad.

Guerilla warfare DESTROYS armies. I shouldn't put too much faith in it, but on a power to weight ratio to bring an engine analogy, the amount of guerillas needed (weight) compared to the damage (power) they cause is insane. I'm not too familiar with how the Vietnam conflict was fought, but I have always assumed it was guerilla. But was there a push from the North?

Totally acceptable. Any democratically elected government must hold the rights to remove certain liberties or processes to expedite the function of government in war.

Guerilla warfare DESTROYS armies. I shouldn't put too much faith in it, but on a power to weight ratio to bring an engine analogy, the amount of guerillas needed (weight) compared to the damage (power) they cause is insane. I'm not too familiar with how the Vietnam conflict was fought, but I have always assumed it was guerilla. But was there a push from the North?

Yes, the North Vietnamese did engage in conventional warfare too (supported of course by China and Russia). Certainly the Vietcong did cause some of the biggest problems, mostly because the US army was, at the time, completly unequipped to deal with them, but then Vietnam was a somewhat different situations because the US weren't there to invade and occupy so much as to defend the South Vietnamese from the North. Which already lent a different aspect to it and meant that they were fighting a war on two fronts - one guerilla, one conventional.

This said, I will admit guerilla warfare can work if the invading country comes from a long way away and there is not necessarily much political support for the invasion in their home country AND if the terrain lends itself to it. See the various attempts to invade Afghanistan over the years (notably the Russians this century and the British in the previous one). But I'd say in most European countries or the US, you could probably use guerilla warfare to defend parts of the countryside, but not others. I certainly wouldn't rely entierly on it as my main source of defence. Certainly as pretty much exclusively any guerilla force that has succeed in pushing out an invading army (or made the situation so unpalatable for them they don't have the political support to continue) have generally been supported by other, outside powers, supplying them with appropriate arms and equipment.

We're forgetting the lessons of Red Dawn. I wasn't even a fetus when that film came out, but I know that I'll be running and screaming to holy hell for Patrick Swayze if the Reds start parachuting in.

Well, I don't have an opinion on draft. But, in Finland's case conscription is necessary. We have only 5 million people here and national service is required for a good defence.

Well, I don't have an opinion on draft. But, in Finland's case conscription is necessary. We have only 5 million people here and national service is required for a good defence.

Hmmm. I always figured that Nightwish and Lordi constituted your deterrent.

No this thread isn't about Iran/Iraq/Saturday night in Manchester, its about What you think of the governments ability to institute a draft in times of hardship? Now I guess I should set up a hypothetical scenario because some of you happen to live in horrible places like Portugal and Egypt (:wink:):

Unfortunately the state of [insert the worst place on Earth here] doesn't take a liking to all this love and happiness across its border choosing to invade with its army of Polish cooks! Quickly pushing your army back the government convenes to institute a draft as a last resort but will you the person support it? what of the pacifists, will they be imprisoned?

If someone invaded Italy I would volunteer to defend my country... unless they explicitly come here to kill just Berlusconi, or it is the Swiss who invade us. Please, Swiss, do invade us! :hail: the Swiss army knife! :hail: Emmentaler! :hail: Viafer Retica! ;)

Anyway, if there's a draft, it would be stupid not to enforce it, wouldn't it? So I guess that people refusing the draft would be forced into discipline battaillons or into military prison.
As for me; as I requested and was granted social services instead of armed service, if I don't volunteer for armed services I can only be employed for non-military tasks, like fire brigade or ambulances.

Hmmm. I always figured that Nightwish and Lordi constituted your deterrent.

But what about if we had been attacked during the Cold War?

I don´t think a draft is ever acceptable. A nation whose people aren´t willing to fight for doesn't deserves to exist.

Well, I don't have an opinion on draft. But, in Finland's case conscription is necessary. We have only 5 million people here and national service is required for a good defence.

We're getting close to that amount of people (4.3 mil or something), but we haven't had conscription since the '50s. Of course, we don't have Russia as an aggressor, we have the Pacific Ocean. Much more deadly.

I don´t think a draft is ever acceptable. A nation whose people aren´t willing to fight for doesn't deserves to exist.

Wait, what?

But what about if we had been attacked during the Cold War?

You still had Mayhem, Myrkskog, and the rest of the Death Metal originators...

Wait, what?

I think he means there should already be a suitable professional voluntary military in place to deal with threats and the idea of drafting people into military service is wrong.

the states right to draft comes from 2 places.
1. the willingness of the people to go along with it.
2. the state's ability to enforce it.

:rolleyes:

Did you see my other post where I said I supported guerilla warfare, thereby making a draft unnecessary.
That's an incredibly rubbish idea. Look at the casualty ratios for guerilla in the years of the last 70 or so years and you'll see that a properly armed and equipped army is the way to go.

Viet Minh/VC - got absolutely panned on the battlefield
Mujahadeen - panned on the battlefield
Somalis - absowtfplastered
Iraqi Insurgency - first year or so they were dropping like flies, even now we're getting, what, a couple of coalition deaths or casualties a day. Oh no.
Taliban - yeop they get their arses kicked also.

Yeah fine the insurgency won in Cuba. But that had a decidedly lamer army than anyone who could take on the powers of Europe, Russia, the US, China etc.

The idea of the franc-tireur is pretty romantic and all, but if you're fighting someone who's got tanks, air support and all the rest, you don't want a small core of decent fighters and then masses of undertrained guerillas who are going to fight how they saw in the movies in better times. Especially in a situation of having a real and total war on. Some idiot with a rifle taking out, say, a soldier or two and having housing blocks levelled is not a victory for the insurgency. It just makes the attackers pissed off and the families of the other side sad and filled with impotent anger. Which is rubbish.

Well in the case of a defense it wouldnt be standard "hold the line" warfare. We do only have limited reserve forces so we would have to use them very wisely and guerrilla warfare would be the only way to effective way to combat a force so huge it could breach our borders. We would need a lot of large scale ambushes and bait and switch tactics in order to repel and launch a counter-offensive with enough troops to buy time to rebuild our forces to a point where a full scale counter invasion could be enacted in which case we start negotiations for a cease fire.

Wait. How do you mount a "counter-offensive with enough troops" if you cannot "hold the line"?

Any industrialised country is pretty much fucked once all major cities are blockaded.

The draft? It's a rubbish idea. If you want to fight for your country, for freedom, or whatever then go right ahead and do that.

Nobody should be forced to do so.

We're getting close to that amount of people (4.3 mil or something), but we haven't had conscription since the '50s. Of course, we don't have Russia as an aggressor, we have the Pacific Ocean. Much more deadly.

It will devour you! But, yeah, it's because of Russia that we have conscription.

Taxes are extortion, the draft is slavery. The sensible alternative is to make survival and combat training a part of the curriculum in public schools and issue assault rifles and a box of sealed ammunition to all fit members of society to be used only in the event of invasion. Basically the Swiss Army-styled militia.

People shouldn't use terms like "extortion" and "slavery" when they clearly don't know what those terms mean.

Being opposed to taxes and/or the draft is one thing, ridiculous hyperbole is another.

That's an incredibly rubbish idea. Look at the casualty ratios for guerilla in the years of the last 70 or so years and you'll see that a properly armed and equipped army is the way to go.

Viet Minh/VC - got absolutely panned on the battlefield
Mujahadeen - panned on the battlefield
Somalis - absowtfplastered
Iraqi Insurgency - first year or so they were dropping like flies, even now we're getting, what, a couple of coalition deaths or casualties a day. Oh no.
Taliban - yeop they get their arses kicked also.

Yeah fine the insurgency won in Cuba. But that had a decidedly lamer army than anyone who could take on the powers of Europe, Russia, the US, China etc.

The idea of the franc-tireur is pretty romantic and all, but if you're fighting someone who's got tanks, air support and all the rest, you don't want a small core of decent fighters and then masses of undertrained guerillas who are going to fight how they saw in the movies in better times. Especially in a situation of having a real and total war on. Some idiot with a rifle taking out, say, a soldier or two and having housing blocks levelled is not a victory for the insurgency. It just makes the attackers pissed off and the families of the other side sad and filled with impotent anger. Which is rubbish.

Some idiot with a rifle is your drafted man.

Well resourced guerillas pwn. They don't shoot a couple of soliders, they blow a bridge up, destroying supply roots. I would actually argue that they augment a traditional military force, but in case of full occupation, you really have no other force.

It will devour you! But, yeah, it's because of Russia that we have conscription.

We're already well on our way to defeat the watery menace! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14419034&postcount=23)

Wait. How do you mount a "counter-offensive with enough troops" if you cannot "hold the line"?

Any industrialised country is pretty much fucked once all major cities are blockaded.

When i say counter offensive i talk on terms of within the front. If you can make a crippling blow with effective guerrilla tactics, then you can launch an attack on camps, forward command posts and eventually you are putting the attacker on the defense buying enough time to rebuild to a certain point where you can continue on the expulsion of the invading forces. This is far from an overnight process. We are talking weeks or months and one time through this list will really only be effective on 1 major position at a time.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

No...I do not support conscription, not even in the scenario outlined by the OP.

No...I do not support conscription, not even in the scenario outlined by the OP.

your right the scenario outline by OP requires a levy en masse not just a draft.

Taxes are extortion, the draft is slavery. The sensible alternative is to make survival and combat training a part of the curriculum in public schools and issue assault rifles and a box of sealed ammunition to all fit members of society to be used only in the event of invasion. Basically the Swiss Army-styled militia.

I would like to know:
1.how are you going to maintain public schools without taxes
2.who's going to pay for rifles and ammo without taxes

...unless you support extortion. :tongue:

Some idiot with a rifle is your drafted man.

Well resourced guerillas pwn. They don't shoot a couple of soliders, they blow a bridge up, destroying supply roots. I would actually argue that they augment a traditional military force, but in case of full occupation, you really have no other force.

The Vietcong were as "well-resourced" as any C20th guerilla force, and still suffered truly appalling casualty rates. All that kept them in the field was desperation, and the support accruing from fighting within Vietnam.I agree with Yootopia; whatever romantic lustre guerilla's possess, the reality is that both the guerilla force, and the populace from which it is drawn and supplied, suffer horrendous material and human losses when fighting an occupying, professional force.

Far better to possess either the military means, or diplomatic allies, to repel invasion.

I would like to know:
1.how are you going to maintain public schools without taxes
2.who's going to pay for rifles and ammo without taxes

...unless you support extortion. :tongue:
I hate double-standards except when I benefit from them.