Conscription:

[James Arryn]

Just now, SeanF said:

When you have guys coming into kill/ethnically cleanse you, is a good rule of thumb for you to apply conscription.

 

They hate us for our freedom. 

[Alarich II]

I was a conscipt, had my basic training with the paratroopers and was then assigned to an an armoured engineer unit. 

In basic training, there was a lot of drill, I learned how to take apart and put back together a G3 and MG3 laying blindfolded in a foxhole, gun on my back. 20 years later, I only remember the First steps, and to KEEP YOUR FUCKING HEELS DOWN!!! but in the 2-4 years after, I still had a pretty good idea how to do it. I really liked shooting both, G3 and MG3, but carrying those fuckers in a 10k night march was less fun. We did mostly light infantry tactics, advancing and retreating under fire, setting up sentry lines and digging foxholes, building light obstacles like a cheval-de-frise, first aid, orientation, did some ambush exercises etc. I disliked most of it, because physically I wasn't very fit (in the beginning) which ist not great when you have paratrooper NCOs lording over you and the constant sleep deprivation was terrible. 

Life with the armoured engineers was the opposite, very relaxed and boring, lots of useless shit like cleaning the (unused) training mines. I was Driver for the platoon leader, which wasn't much of a job. We did some interesting stuff (I was in the mining platoon) like laying different minefields, booby-trapping buildings and setting up certain ambush situations against tanks. And we learned how to blow up stuff, using PETN, how to model a hollow charge, that was fun. But those things were rare and during a training exercise with PETN one of our NCOs had a terrible accident, that cost him an arm, a leg and an eye.

In the end I wouldn't call it totally wasted time, I did get some stories out of it and I did learn some things (most are forgotten now) but not having to spend my time there would have a lot better. Would give it 4/10. Not recommended.

[SeanF]

44 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

What about the Nazi or Putin conscripts?  Do you really find [no] moral or ethical dilemma with threatening a random person with violence if they don't do your bidding?  

 

The issue with the Nazis and Putin is that they had no moral justification for their wars.  So, conscripting people to fight in their immoral wars only compounded the offence.

For those defending themselves, well, no, I have no issue with making such threats in the event of national emergency.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The issue with the Nazis and Putin is that they had no moral justification for their wars.  So, conscripting people to fight in their immoral wars only compounded the offence.

For those defending themselves, well, no, I have no issue with making such threats in the event of national emergency.

 

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[DireWolfSpirit]

The U.S. has over 2 million people incarcerated. I'd rather they cull through that population to see if they'd prefer a change of scenery before they resorted to a mandatory draft.

Were a draft still deemed necessary I'd prefer it be mandated to mirror the U.S. House/Senate demographics for median age and income.

Oh and of course U.S. legislators shall get no exemptions to the service. 

Let these jerkwaddles lead by example when they want to herd population.

[Larry of the Lawn]

53 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The issue with the Nazis and Putin is that they had no moral justification for their wars.  So, conscripting people to fight in their immoral wars only compounded the offence.

For those defending themselves, well, no, I have no issue with making such threats in the event of national emergency.

That's the catch though isn't it?  The person being compelled to serve could be (and I'd argue usually is) getting dragged into an immoral or unethical conflict.  

What's a fair punishment for refusing to serve when conscripted?

[Wade1865]

9 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

A ridiculous holdover from the time when we (as a species) were constantly at war with each other...

...At any rate, isnt the trend moving away from humans and more towards machinery (drones, aircraft, tanks etc.)?

IheartIheartTesla -- oh (my sweet, sweet summer child (just teasing!)); it's not a holdover from when wars were constant. Remember, there's a dozen and a half or so armed conflicts occurring right now. War underlies everything (i.e., the father of all things), waiting for an opportunity to manifest again by way of realized and unrealized mass conscript armies. Since WWII, we've never been as close to its general use, across continents, as we are now; hence, it's ongoing relevance.

Warfare (like business and politics) is cyclic, but the trend never moves from men to machines or vice versa; but in tandem, with men always ever the proponent. Without men, there are no machines, or machine operators. In other words, man is the primary constant while a machine (or whatever the fashion of the age is) represents a secondary, evolving interplay between progression and regression.

2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

We should be moving away from warfare as a mode to settle disputes, not prolonging or feeding it...

...And future warfare will be increasingly reliant on highly technical specialists operating drones, etc.

Iskaral Pust -- well, "should" is idealistic; but unreasonable. So long as there's struggle on playgrounds and sports fields; in corporate boardrooms and political offices; humanity will never abandon the utility of armed conflict and its associated benefits (e.g., resource control, ideological domination, technological progress, social evolution).

Future warfare will always be reliant upon the simple Infantryman (drone operators are secondarily useful, or worse); American and otherwise. Everything revolves around the grunt, including technology. Technology (an aspect of capability) can influence the means and outcomes of war, but never determines it.

[Wade1865]

3 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Yeah it's still here, although pretty sure it includes everyone in the age range now not just men.

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Do we even have selective service registration in the States anymore?

Larry of the Lake, et al. -- most men, citizen and immigrant, aged 18-25. Women are excluded, though there was a debate on it years ago.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Larry of the Lake, et al. -- most men, citizen and immigrant, aged 18-25. Women are excluded, though there was a debate on it years ago.

Thanks, my bad, thought that cleared both houses this summer but apparently not.

[Wade1865]

7 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Thanks, my bad, thought that cleared both houses this summer but apparently not.

Larry of the Lake -- you're not wrong; I believe it was approved by House and Senate, but was thrown out during closed-door negotiations.

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

IheartIheartTesla -- oh (my sweet, sweet summer child (just teasing!)); it's not a holdover from when wars were constant. Remember, there's a dozen and a half or so armed conflicts occurring right now. War underlies everything (i.e., the father of all things), waiting for an opportunity to manifest again by way of realized and unrealized mass conscript armies. Since WWII, we've never been as close to its general use, across continents, as we are now; hence, it's ongoing relevance.

Warfare (like business and politics) is cyclic, but the trend never moves from men to machines or vice versa; but in tandem, with men always ever the proponent. Without men, there are no machines, or machine operators. In other words, man is the primary constant while a machine (or whatever the fashion of the age is) represents a secondary, evolving interplay between progression and regression.

Iskaral Pust -- well, "should" is idealistic; but unreasonable. So long as there's struggle on playgrounds and sports fields; in corporate boardrooms and political offices; humanity will never abandon the utility of armed conflict and its associated benefits (e.g., resource control, ideological domination, technological progress, social evolution).

Future warfare will always be reliant upon the simple Infantryman (drone operators are secondarily useful, or worse); American and otherwise. Everything revolves around the grunt, including technology. Technology (an aspect of capability) can influence the means and outcomes of war, but never determines it.

Playground fights have been statistically in decline for years now. 

[Wade1865]

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Playground fights have been statistically in decline for years now. 

James Arryn -- that's interesting and I believe you, though there's been an escalation in school massacres.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

James Arryn -- that's interesting and I believe you, though there's been an escalation in school massacres.

True enough, but I think that’s premised on a different dynamic than the one you were citing. Ie, few of them have anything to do with conflict resolution, and a great many involve shooters who have little or nothing to do with the schools they attack, just targets of opportunity/trend following. 

[Wade1865]

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

True enough, but I think that’s premised on a different dynamic than the one you were citing. Ie, few of them gave anything to do with conflict resolution, and a great many involve shooters who have little or nothing to do with the schools they attack, just targets of opportunity/trend fallowing. 

James Arryn -- again, your perspective is insightful and value-added!

Agreed, a school shooter isn't limited to being a current student killing other current students (but also includes teachers, graduates, outsiders, criminals, et al.), the conflict just has to be executed there, where socialization occurs and lessons are learned. Likewise, warfighters aren't limited to killing only other warfighters, nor do their actions have to occur on the battlefield.

On your specific counterpoint, limiting schoolyard conflicts to current students only, wherever it has decreased in frequency (as you said, and I believe it), is due to parental scrutiny and increased security, as opposed to human evolution. The spectrum of conflict is introduced at home, evolves in the schoolyards, and culminates on the battlefield. The bottom line is that conflict is inherent to humanity and will not be eradicated, only controlled -- usually unsuccessfully as demonstrated by the escalation / militarization of school massacre incidents.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 9/11/2022 at 2:36 PM, James Arryn said:

They hate us for our freedom. 

Unironicly sometimes yes.

if you listen to what Russian military leaders say to gear up their men to go slaughter Ukrainians it usually surrounds culture war nonsense.

On 9/11/2022 at 4:59 PM, Wade1865 said:

Future warfare will always be reliant upon the simple Infantryman (drone operators are secondarily useful, or worse); American and otherwise. Everything revolves around the grunt, including technology. Technology (an aspect of capability) can influence the means and outcomes of war, but never determines it.

Also conscription could pull people more skilled in certain areas that are under-manned. 
 

The military also has to compete with private entities who could offer more with less risk.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 9/11/2022 at 1:40 AM, Luzifer's right hand said:

I myself hated my time in the army and all the people I was forced to interact with there. I have never met more despicable far right, sexist and racist people again in my life.

Isn’t there value in having more progressive, or at least membership in the military  to counteract those deplorables who will always be drawn to postitions where they’re likely to be granted an opportunity to hurt people.

 

 

[Luzifer's right hand]

39 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Isn’t there value in having more progressive, or at least membership in the military  to counteract those deplorables who will always be drawn to postitions where they’re likely to be granted an opportunity to hurt people.

 

 

Well people can volunteer for that. I'm not for forcing people to do it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

Well people can volunteer for that. I'm not for forcing people to do it.

Not enough people volunteer sometimes

[Luzifer's right hand]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not enough people volunteer sometimes

Irrelevant unless you are fighting a defensive war imo.

[kiko]

On 9/11/2022 at 11:50 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

The U.S. has over 2 million people incarcerated. I'd rather they cull through that population to see if they'd prefer a change of scenery before they resorted to a mandatory draft.

Giving combat training exclusively to those, the state considers criminal. What could possibly go wrong?