NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question regarding draft and conscription.

I know that the nation can onl ICLy have 5% of the population enlisted or else the economy would get all screwed up.

Secondly my draft system differs from the US one. In the US one people are automatically sent to the army while in mine the military finds out your background so that they can put you in the branch they feel you will benefit the war cause in best. (example: computer programmer ends up in the fleet, airline pilots would be placed into the airforce, biologists ,chemists, engineers and scientists in general would be placed in weapons development. People with seafaring jobs who are South Lizasaurian citezens would be placed in the navy and so on and so forth.)

Thirdly you are only conscripted if the government feels you'll benefit the country/cause better if your in the service. If not you remain a civilian. (Example: Railroad workers and those who keep the modern necessities running(electricity, water, sewage, police, firefighters) and other people of professions who would better serve society and the nation as a civilian are not enlisted.

Lastly, a law had been passed recently in my nation (based off the birds bees and breeding teens issue) that forces all teenage men who impregnate underage women to join the army in order to support the child.

Here's my question. If homeless and unemployed people are only taking up resources but not putting anything back in, would automatically conscripting them so that at least they'll be doing society some form of service by defending the nation, would that screw up the economy because the poor, homeless and unemployed would be off at war? I know that that course of action would result in an army more than 5% of the population.

Well first how your ideas about US conscription laws are way off haha, basically everything you described that your nation does the US does as well in times of conscription.

But as to your question, it wouldn't but homeless people aren't usually notorious for keeping records, neither are they usually fit for military service (too old,sickly, etc)... So while I don't see anything wrong with conscripting them you would probably just be able to get few numbers from the unemployed or homeless just because they usually aren't fit for service.

Well, if you have a homeless rate greater than 1%, give or take, that's generally a sign of serious economic problems, making large military expenditures difficult enough without the 5-10 fold increase needed for that kind of expansion. That being said, of course, the military's pretty expensive; even if the people in question are not being taken from the active labor force, that's a lot of money coming from taxpayers that will reduce their income and spending power, with knock on effects on the rest of the economy.

A 5% military would be onerously expensive even using homeless people; that is, of course, unless they're mostly untrained, underequipped, and supply their own food, clothing, and lodging while in service.

Lastly, a law had been passed recently in my nation (based off the birds bees and breeding teens issue) that forces all teenage men who impregnate underage women to join the army in order to support the child.

Yay for dysfunctional single parent homes!

Yay for dysfunctional single parent homes!
Yes, I know, thats one of the few corrupt conspiracies my IC generals and politicians came up with in a time of war. They needed troops, the opportunity presented itself. Thats one of the major reason some people in my nation are pissed at the government right now.

Actually, I did some research a while ago and found out that Nazi Germany had about 6 percent of the population in the army in 1939 (presumably before the war kicked off). It must have been quite based upon a war economy, but slightly higher than 5% is hardly instant recipe for disaster. Though it does mean you'll need to start bullying a couple of small countries for economic injections.

I know that the nation can onl ICLy have 5% of the population enlisted or else the economy would get all screwed up.


That's a very general figure and not always correct, and sometimes it depends on the size of your nation. For example, 'The Macabees' during war time had less than .5% of the population in the armed forces (yet had about 40 million soldiers!). On the other hand, when the Spanish Civil War ended Spain had about 1 million men in active service, which at the time was probably around 1.5% of the population. Even during the war maybe up to 3% of the population was fighting - 3 to 4%.

You could probably get a better answer if you posted here (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?act=idx) - specifically, in the Strategy & Tactics section [/shameless plug].