International Interventions and their comparability

I think it depends on what society and circumstances you have.

It seems to work for South Korea.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

M84, you wrote:

It often is, when needed.

You added: I’m anti- when not needed, pro- when needed.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 20th 2018 at 4:57:15 PM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

Speaking as a Actual Pacifist and Berserk Button anti-authoritarian, yes, in the case of say, an alien invasion or the Robot Uprising then yes conscription is fine. However, that's not a likely set of circumstances any time in the future.

Mind you, the US military volunteer army is HUGE.

The big problem is it's garrisoning a huge part of the world, British Empire style. Moving those people around and out of their spots is almost impossible.

When we run out of troops, it's because of these commitments.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 20th 2018 at 10:02:51 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

The problem is that you've also tried to make arguments like "it's not too hard to properly motivate conscripts" and "hey maybe if we had conscription there would be fewer wars". So it kind of seems like you are arguing a pro-conscription view.

Disgusted, but not surprised

More like “it’s not too hard for conscripts to find motivation if the war’s clearly about national defence, and far less so if it’s for some vague and fuzzy, esoteric, hermetic, or fabricated causes.”

Further:
More like “perhaps there would be less military adventures let alone aggressive ones.”

Then:
I do argue a pro-conscription view if such is needed and that it can be at times, an anti-conscription view if such is unneeded.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 20th 2018 at 5:28:16 PM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

US history was hardly lacking in military adventurism prior to Vietnam.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

There is a watershed around 1945 for military adventurism as far as democracies are concerned. Wars of aggression and conquest have lost much of their cachet, though it seems to be making a comeback in recent years, somewhat.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

Honestly, you could convince the people that any endeavor is worthwhile. Putting them directly in harm's way wouldn't change that.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

You could for a while, but not to last. Conscripts would be willing to fight to defend their country, far less so for some vague political buzzwords as misty as the fog of war if not more so; then their loved ones back home would soon question the reasons for said war and the ongoing casualties.
Even with a fully professional military such questions arise, they could do so much more with conscription.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 20th 2018 at 5:44:51 PM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

Quoth Fourthspartan66:

Why so? If they were motivated, why would there be a need to conscript them? wouldn't they already have volunteered?

Alityros The Philosopher: I don't understand why you associate conscription with sense of duty. Conscripts don't participate in a war out of sense of duty, they participate because they'll be punished if they don't. Those who join out of sense of duty join voluntarily, they don't wait for the draft.

You won't find duty-bound soldiers among conscripts, you'll find them among the volunteers you deride so much.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

That's the main reason conscripts are by and large not as reliable as the volunteer soldiers: they do not want to be there.

Disgusted, but not surprised

So we're talking about this from the perspective of foreign interventions right? In that case, it's better keep to the volunteers. A country may have a national service system, but often send volunteer units specifically trained for that purpose who have completed that period of their life.

Otherwise, the argument has little merit outside of countries that can maintain sizeable volunteer forces.

Edited by TerminusEst on Aug 21st 2018 at 3:07:49 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

There is essentially no merit to conscription in the modern era. I can’t really think of a situation where it would become nessecary, and given US experiences with it in the past we’re pretty keen on avoiding it.

Volunteers can cope with the demands of modern war more easily, and form a more effective fighting force. If we needed more people there are ways to increase intake.

They should have sent a poet.

Medinoc, you wrote:

I can see that. Some don’t understand why I would associate stopping at a red light or paying may damn taxes with sense of duty, as with other civic duties.

You added:
Is that assessment based personal anecdotes or is it backed by some kind of hard data?

Further:
See my previous question.

Then:
In this and other discussions you can find all kinds of claims about my little old self which I don’t usually care to address, so don’t mind my playing against type in this case.

Now, you are claiming that I am deriding the volunteers, and oh so much.
Did I write that there’s no such thing as a properly motivated volunteer?
Did I write that you'll always be better served by conscripts?
Did I write that volunteers are almost always a liability?

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 21st 2018 at 11:27:57 AM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

There are cultural and organisational aspects to it that simply don't exist outside of those nations that utilise a national service model.

Just send volunteers abroad, it ends better for everyone. We're not exactly looking at World War 2 here.

Edited by TerminusEst on Aug 21st 2018 at 4:19:10 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

Conscripts are known to be poorly-motivated and lacking professionalism compared to volunteers. Many who are forced to serve aren’t all too happy about it, and the fact that they can’t be discharged as punishment encourages bad behavior.

These are all issues that modern conscript forces deal with on a daily basis.

They should have sent a poet.

It seems reasonable to assume that big powerful countries, either with no enemies or whose enemies cannot pose a credible threat to their national security have no need for conscription, in which case I oppose it.
However, that does not seem to be the gist of the opposition to conscription in our present discussion.

As citizens there are many things we may not want to do, but have to. Paying taxes is never pleasant and some do argue that the state (if it even be allowed to exist) should rely solely on voluntary donations rather than compulsory taxes, which unlike conscription are always necessary.

Some people will voluntarily abide by the law without the need for enforcement i e: compulsion, but we cannot rely solely on those, given necessity.
Some people will voluntarily donate the monies needed by the public polity without the need for taxation but we cannot rely solely on those, given necessity.
Conscription, unlike the two former examples is not always necessary and fortunately so, yet if and when it is, we cannot rely solely on those willing to join the military voluntarily, given necessity.

It is a combination of necessity and compulsion i e: a civic duty.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

There’s no reason for a modern army to use conscription, unless their county has too small a population to have a useful pool of volunteers.

There’s a reason many countries either already do or are transitioning to national service rather than mandatory military service. Conscripts just have a lot of issues

They should have sent a poet.

Aah, so you separated the two (military and national)? I was confused.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

A lot of countries are moving to a national service model, where you can do your two years or however long working in some other government office rather than the military. Personally I regard this as a superior model.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 21st 2018 at 4:35:26 AM

They should have sent a poet.

I know that, I live in one. Outside of authoritarian countries, I don't think purely military systems exist. Or was South Korea still like that?

Edited by TerminusEst on Aug 21st 2018 at 4:39:55 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

While I may be mistaken, it seems to me that the reason for conscription comes when the pool of hostile enemies is way too threatening for a given country’s pool of available and useful volunteers to handle.

Countries lacking such hostile threats whose armed forces are geared more towards national defence than adventurism have no need for conscription at all.
Armed forces geared more towards adventurism will find conscription inefficient for most adventures.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 21st 2018 at 11:51:21 AM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

I’m of the opinion that in the case of South Korea and Taiwan to name but two, mandatory military service is necessary.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

archonspeaks forgive me for missing your #91:

Volunteers are likely to be more motivated than conscripts if the war is not one conscripts can reasonably associate with national defence or if they don’t identify with the country of which they’re citizens (which can happen too).

It can be argued, and often is, that defending the country which involves killing other poor bastards in combat is a profession like all others and thus should be the exclusive preserve of professionals.
It can also be argued, and sometimes is, that war is way too serious a matter to be left to the professional military alone (to paraphrase Clémenceau) and in this case, leaving the nation’s defence solely in the hands of those liking, enjoying, wanting war, and whose loyalties might be inclined to lean towards God! Corps! Country! In that order!

Though I argue mostly that conscription having been and being used when the threat to the country in question makes it necessary, indicates it is useful in that particular case.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 21st 2018 at 12:10:49 PM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

Are you talking about a peace time all-inclusive, all-military option? That would be against international law, if a civilian option were not offered.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele