International Interventions and their comparability

Terminus Est, you wrote:

I’m talking about mandatory military service when the hostile threat makes it necessary. South Korea was mentioned eariler, a country not presently engaged in warfare yet in an ongoing state of war with a very hostile country to its North.

Further:
I have no knowledge of any international treaty or convention to that effect, let alone which countries signed it.

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

Practically all countries have that option on the table if a war is on the horizon. As for the right to an alternative service, ECHR has ruled on a few cases where such an option was not available or was not implemented in a proper way, as a violation of human rights. I think Armenia was one about a decade back, and we got some heat for that as well. So basically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the paper you'd be looking at, but with all the caveats that come with it.

Our constitution allows for the drafting of every citizen to national defense in any form required, provided that such a state of emergency exists.

Edited by TerminusEst on Aug 21st 2018 at 5:51:49 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

It's based on the very definition of conscription: Forcibly recruiting people to fight. When people join out of sense of duty, rather than being conscripted, that makes them volunteers.

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

This is a far too reductionist position, now they certainly tend to have less motivation then professional soldiers but if the cause is clearly right they can absolutely be motivated.

For an example of this look at the US army during WW 2, it used a great deal of conscripts and due to the lack of nuance regarding the war they still managed to be a supremely effective fighting machine.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

At the very least you might get people who wouldn't mind being conscripted, if not actual volunteers.

Skimming over the last two pages, it feels like the general opinion on conscription is "I disapprove of this thing, except when I don't" or vice versa. As in it's bad but serves a sometimes needed function in which case we go with it.

I can't speak for others but my opposition to conscription is purely practical, it's just a tool and the evidence points towards it being the wrong tool for the most common form of modern conflict.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Terminus Est, in your #102 you wrote:

The European Court of Human Rights, as in relevant only to member countries of the Council of Europe?

Then:
That one then
Nothing about military service or civilian option, although that could be amended at a later time. For the time being, several artcles such as 18, 19, 20 could find some interpretation in that general direction, or not.

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

Medinoc, in your #103 you wrote:

That narrow and shallow definition is akin to saying “taxation is forcibly making citizens contribute to the Treasury.”
You made earlier an assessment on conscripts, as in many different persons, that they don’t participate in a war out of a sense of duty, as in making a judgement about the sense of duty or lack thereof of each and every one of them. My question above still stands.

Further:
Again, that is akin to saying “when people contribute to the Treasury out a sense of duty rather than being taxpayers, that makes them donors.”
That may be the case in Freebertalia, which is nowhere to be found (except perhaps in some bad novel).

Unlike taxation, conscription isn’t of a universal necessity and thank goodness for that. When it is needed though, it’s a civic duty, like taxation, a combination of necessity and of compulsion; part and parcel of the social contract.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 21st 2018 at 4:02:21 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

, It’s simply a dated institution. Conscripts are a detriment in modern combat, the only countries that still use them are countries too small to fill out an army any other way.

Except paying a tax and fighting in a war are two very different things. That comparison doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 21st 2018 at 9:10:01 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Well said.

The idea that conscription is somehow a bad thing in of itself is a deeply problematic position for the reasons that you laid out, when it's necessary it's a civic duty that is simply part and parcel with one's obligation to the social contract.

I disagree, taxes exist because individuals have a certain responsibility to supporting the societal institution that benefit them directly or indirectly.

Conscription is simply the same concept but in war, if they truly are no-longer necessary in any modern war then that's a practical position independent of their moral value.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 21st 2018 at 12:11:43 PM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

I'd say there's a slight difference between paying taxes and being told "Hey, we need you to go fight and kill people and risk dying yourself."

Disgusted, but not surprised

It's a difference of degrees, they both involve obligations to society as part of the social contract.

If conscription is necessary for a society then I don't see any moral difference between it and taxation, neither are voluntary and both presumably are necessary. If it's not due to impracticality then the whole thing is a moot point.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 21st 2018 at 12:16:26 PM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

The difference in degrees does matter, especially when one just demands a portion of your paycheck and the other demands you risk your life killing other human beings.

I'm just saying that trying to compare conscription to taxpaying probably isn't the best way to make a point.

Edited by M84 on Aug 22nd 2018 at 12:18:07 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised

That's certainly fair enough, though I will point out that due to the extreme unpopularity of conscription in say the US it would only be done if the situation is serious enough for it to be justified.

Thus while serious it's extremely unlikely to be something done for frivolous reasons.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 21st 2018 at 12:18:58 PM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

archonspeaks, in your #109 you wrote:

I keep hearing it affirmed as an axiom, as I keep hearing about women having no place in combat.

Further:
Like South Korea, with a population of around 51 millions.

More:
A citizen has the civic duty, as in social contract obligation, to maintain and keep her or his polity in existence if and when necessary, whether one wants or not. That means paying my damn taxes, and if and when needed taking up arms to defend my country and its citizens.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 21st 2018 at 4:26:28 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

This is a nonsensical comparison, there are very clear and logical reasons for conscripts to be unreliable that is supported by extensive historical and contemporary evidence.

To compare practical opposition to conscription to opposition to female soldiers is frankly offensive and verging on strawmanning.

The former is backed up rationality and evidence while the latter is not.

Who have a large and hostile neighbor whom they would face in a symmetrical conflict, which as an example is thus irrelevant to our discussion about whether or not conscripts can be useful in asymmetrical conflicts.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between gender discrimination and a preference for volunteers over people who don't really want to be there in the first place.

One is unfairly rejecting people who actually want to fight. The other is simply finding it better to work with people who want to be there instead of people who don't.

Edited by M84 on Aug 22nd 2018 at 12:28:19 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Fourthspartan56, in your #116 you wrote:

Those claiming women have no place in combat often claim clear and logical evidence to support said claim assuming it is self-evident. This is commonly done in military circles and about things military.
Both claims are about the uselessness of certain individuals in combat, given as is and leaving it at that.

Further:
So it is not about the country being too small as you said earlier, and my statement about it being about the size and power of the hostile threat which could require more than volunteers, still stands.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 21st 2018 at 4:45:40 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

Warfare is so mechanized and specialized nowadays that a conscript being sent onto the front lines is more or less useless. If it were a literal "Hannibal at the gates" sort of situation, I could understand rounding up conscripts in a time of sheer desperation, but this notion that our military effectiveness in fighting more routinem, foreign military conflicts would be enhanced or even just maintained by doing so reveals an illiteracy of the actual expertise that being a soldier these days requires. A rifle and six weeks of basic will buy a conscript maybe six minutes before their brains get blown out. In countries that employ conscription, a lot of them tend to be soldiers at the rear, instructors, non-combatant servicemen, etc. It takes dozens of personnel to keep one fighting man in the field, and that's where the manpower shortages come into play. Countries like South Korea and Israel, apart from being in close proximity to enemy powers, simply can't maintain a military infrastructure with the volunteers they have. Most Vietnam-era conscripts were sent to European military bases, as well — you need the infrastructure support when your military footprint is disproportionately huge. That doesn't mean that compulsory service is an ideal arrangement, or that potentially removing thousands of people from the civilian economy doesn't have any drawbacks. And it wouldn't have solved any of America's issues in recent wars. This talk about "civic duty" comes off as excessively academic and detached from the reality on the ground, where American failures are typically rooted in a poor cassus belli, and lack of post-war investment and strategy. That's not something more Cannon Fodder is going to fix.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 21st 2018 at 1:29:04 PM

"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."

Alityros The Philosopher: I admit my mistake, I was only seeing the two extremes, whereas there's a full spectrum between "volunteers spontaneously" and "goes along only out of fear of punishment". The problem is, not enough words for the people in-between, so I tend to associate "conscript" only with the latter extreme whereas you don't.

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

And once again this is nonsense, just because they claim something does not make it true.

The complexity of modern warfare coupled with the often poor showing of conscripts is practically undeniable, it's completely false to compare it to people opposing female soldiers for purely ideological reasons.

I have said that conscripts can play a role in symmetrical conflicts, that is perfectly compatible with smaller countries generally relying on conscription. Not to mention that since this entire discussion has been about asymmetrical conflicts South Korea is not a valid example.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Okay, that’s a ridiculous strawman. It almost comes across like you’re insinuating I don’t approve of women in combat, which is incorrect and not even relevant besides.

The reason you often see it affirmed as a fact is because it is one. It’s such a basic fact (i.e. backed up by many decades of research and experience) it hardly needs to be explained, which is why I described that stance as militarily illiterate in my original post in this thread. Typecasting “military circles” as sexist to back up an unrelated point is just offensive.

Size of the enemy doesn’t matter so much as size of the country fielding the army. You only really need conscripts when your country is very small.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 21st 2018 at 11:15:50 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Having followed the discussion for a while:

1. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic soldiers are. What matters the most is how well-trained they are. Because even the most unwilling soldiers will do whatever necessary to survive and nobody has ever won a battle through enthusiasm.

2. There are two types of conscription, and they have to be considered differently. If you conscribe people in order to force them to fight some war on foreign soil - ie what happened in Vietnam - then it is an extremely questionable act. If you do it strictly for defence purposes, it is just common sense.

3. Naturally if you have conscription, it makes sense to have it for both genders. The more trained fighters you have, the better.

4. Thus said, even with conscription of self-defence there should be a way to opt out and do basic training so that those people who don't want to carry a gun at least have other useful skills for emergency situation.

5. Conscription actually has a number of benefits for a country...we recently had this discussion in the German politics threat, since Germany ended conscription a few years ago and is now reconsidering this (stupid if you ask me) decision.

Point 1 isn’t fully correct. Yes, training can make up for a difference in motivation, but only to a degree, and conscripts aren’t as well-trained as volunteers anyways. A soldier’s attitude towards service is incredibly important, and those forced into service rarely have a good attitude about it.

Since you mention Germany, I actually once got to watch a joint exercise in the late 90s with US Army and German Army elements. Several of the German units were made up of conscripts, and the difference in attitude and fitness compared to the US Army units was stark.

If all they have to do is stand around and look pretty with rifles, then sure, conscripts are fine. When it comes to warfighting you really want volunteers, unless you quite literally don’t have them they’re the best option.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 21st 2018 at 3:39:16 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Let's put it this way: The kind of training American soldiers go through isn't really a thing in Germany anyway.