I've been meaning to create this thread for quite some while. We've had a few conscription threads here earlies but quite a lot time has passed since the last one. So here it is, containing a little poll too! I'll edit my starting post a bit with my views soon enough but I want to get the poll cleared up first. ;)

EDIT: Now then to my views on the issue. I'm supporting full conscription of armed forces. Mainly because I feel the need for the country to have enough defenses all the time. Finnish policy has since WWII been to have a large armed reserve making invading extremely expensive and occupation a huge strain on the enemy discouraging any possible attacks. I find this policy very reasonable and I'm not very fond of the way most European countries seem to be going. While there is no military threat to Europe right now, things might not be the same after fifty years and going back to conscription after its removal would not be easy considering that the population had no military training at all.

Additionally conscription is quite cheap. We spend a lot less to our military expenses than Sweden, Denmark or Norway by not investing huge amounts on armies mainly proficient in international crisis management, while still providing our fair amount of troops for peacekeeping missions around the world. Conscripted troops should never be used too lightly though and only voulenteers should be sent to international missions.

Also I don't feel that women should conscripted. Not because they're not up to it, not because they are in any way weaker but because you simply need to divide the people in the crisis. The entire population can't be sent to the front. A gender choice is the best solution to bring down a 50/50 division of the population. Of course women who want should be allowed to take the military training, after all to some of us it's not just a stupid obligation. ;)

Lastly I finished my military service last october and am a proud corporal medic of the Finnish defense forces. ;)

EDIT2: Question2 is actually about wartime conscription and not peacetime. I probably should have made that more clear.

[ December 16, 2006, 03:25: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 4 question(s). 31 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Conscription (31 votes.)

How do you think your country should arrange its defense? (Choose 1)
* Private army only - 13% (4)
* Small private army with a large conscripted reserve - 16% (5)
* Full conscription - 16% (5)
* Voulenteers only - 45% (14)
* Other - 10% (3)

Under which conditions would you agree with draft of the civillian population? (Choose 1)
* Everytime the government needs more troops - 6% (2)
* Only under very extreme circumstances threatening the existance of my country - 68% (21)
* Never - 19% (6)
* Other - 6% (2)

Should women be exempt from conscription laws? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 32% (10)
* No - 58% (18)
* Undecided - 10% (3)

Have you been in military service or had other forms of military education? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 29% (9)
* No - 71% (22)

Personally I'm for only having those who want to be involved be involved, barring extraneous circumstances.

I think that this point, if we do indeed support sexual equality, women should conscripted even if they are not used to fight on the front lines, they can still perform duties such as driving vehicles or doing ever so glorious paper.

Me personally, I'm exempt from military service for medical reasons and would have to serve my country in other ways then with a gun. For that reason I'm not worried about conscription for my own sake, but I'd hate the thought of my little brother being forced to into the military. Seeing as he's 19, he'd be the prime age for the draft.

I don't mind those who volunteer to to into the army, but it's just not my cup of tea. An army of volunteers seems good enough for me.

As for being drafted into the army... I would never agree with that. I'd rather leave the country or rot in jail.

Woman or man, drafting is a huge no-no to me.

I never had any form of military education and I don't want to.

I said volunteers, and only a draft under extreme circumstances. However, that is a very ambiguous statement, as I'm sure some would think that the War on Terror ( :rolleyes: ) is extreme, but I think only if our country (being the US) is being invaded should we have a draft. Although, if we got invaded, I am sure many people would sign up anyways.

Women should be drafted too. They want equality, but they don't want to be drafted. That is a bull**** move, and I think if women want to be considered legal equals, they should accept the draft too. I personally hate drafts, but If I am getting drafted, I think anyone above 18 (and probably below 40) should be drafted.

Full conscription. A: then we'd have enough troops to actually fight counterinsurgency campaigns succesfully.
B: People would be much more reluctant to rush off to war, since their asses would be on the line. My country really needs to quit with pointless foreign adventures (and I'm not just thinking of Iraq and Vietnam here), and this'd do it. Sure, there're other solutions to that I'd pursue first, but we're talking about this one.
C: The populace would bear the burden of war equally. Reading about WWII, what jumps out immediately is how many 'well to do' folks found themselves on the front line (editor in chief of the NYT, etc). As above, there're other solutions I'd pursue first, but we're talking about this one.

Yes, draft in wartime is good, for all the reasons I outlined above (and the same caveats apply).

Yes, women should be drafted. Unless someone wants to start making an argument that they're somehow not capable (of course, anyone making this argument will have to explain to the numerous females who've found themselves on the firing line in Iraq why they're unfit to serve).

A gender choice is the best solution to bring down a 50/50 division of the populationCare to elaborate? I'm getting the impression you're talking about drafting all the males, but I doubt that's what you mean.

Conscription is a silly idea, in my opinion. What's the point of having a load of soldiers who don't want to be there? They'd be hopeless!

Since my country doesn't have a large population while still in a state of war with the North, conscripts are really the only way to go. As for women, I believe they should be drafted if they really want 'equality.'

My check-up is in like 3 months, and I'll be drafted after I finish college, but I don't mind that much.

Well, the in WW-II German army overran most of Europe with conscripts, and were beaten by conscript armies from Britain, the Commonwealth, Russia and the US. Being conscripted doesn't tell really say much about fighting value.

Even though there is always a degree of social selection, it ensures that people from all social classes and ranks of life end up in the armed forces. Trust me that it makes a difference, at the very least in tone, when highly educated and less educated people are mixed up in a unit. It's an antidote against a closed 'army society' that can be found in all-professional armies.

One side benefit is also that in democracies politicos will think twice before sending conscripted armies out on adventures.

I was conscripted for a year of service. I'm a Hauptgefreiter, Fernmeldetruppe. I think conscription is a good idea.

Conscription is legalized slavery. It rests on the principle that the state is much wiser and much more important than the people - that the state knows best what we should be doing, when we should be doing it, for how long, and what (if anything!) we should be paid for it.

I voted Volunteer only, even under extreme circumstances. If my country were invaded, I would fight the invaders, but not necessarily for my government's sake! If we should have conscription laws, women should not be excempt - it should not be "free" for women politicians to vote for conscription.

Care to elaborate? I'm getting the impression you're talking about drafting all the males, but I doubt that's what you mean. Yes well 50/50 of the potential conscription forces is more like it. Obviously you can't draft and send retired people and those medically unfit.

Conscription is a silly idea, in my opinion. What's the point of having a load of soldiers who don't want to be there? They'd be hopeless! You'd be surprised to see what people can achieve when fighting for survival.

The basic idea by having people from all social layers together down the dirt for a time being I find heathy for any community. I didn't like beeing a conscript tough.

Why shouldn't you fight for your country in times of war? Who else will if you don't?

Every healthy male (and voluntary females) should get a military training because you can't know when you will need it. But I think conscripts should be reserved for extreme cases. I say the army should consist of professionals with conscript reinforcements for extreme cases.

I was lucky enough to avoid being drafted (we have a professional army in France). I hate uniforms and I can't take orders at any time. I don't believe that armies can achieve much either except as a deterrent (they certainly can't prevent ongoing wars and are not adapted to deal with humanitarian crises).
Anyway some people dig that sort of things and I'd leave this to them. If my country was in danger I'd be much more useful as a civilian (don't overlook the importance of resistance and participation in the war effort, I believe it's much more important than wallowing in the mud with a SMG).
I don't know -and hopefully won't ever find out- if I have what it takes to be a hero or a patriot but one thing is certain, I'll never be a soldier.

Why shouldn't you fight for your country in times of war?If it is like the War in Iraq right now. It is a stupid, pointless, moralless war that I don't want to die for. Plus, I hate my country anyways :p .

I havent given it much thought, or taken all facts into consideration. There are valid arguments in favour of drafts. But off the top of my head I say no. Mainly because, back then, I would have fought tooth and nail to avoid military service. Luckily I did not have to.

Should Germany come under threat, though, I would join the Bundeswehr and fight.

im with harbourboy on this, conscription is stupid. moral is near impossible to maintain and policing all of the deserters would be a nightmare. and what would you do? how would you force people to fight? shoot them if they refuse was always the way, locking them up doesnt work as many would rather go to jail then fight.

now, to my opinion on a draft, i believe that drafting soldiers for the front line is wrong, but a 2 year draft between the ages of 16 - 18 into support areas is a good idea, teach youngsters life skills and discipline.

If it is like the War in Iraq right now. It is a stupid, pointless, moralless war that I don't want to die for. Plus, I hate my country anyways [Razz] . Conscription wouldn't be used in a war like that.

Put it this way, if someone attacked the US directly and tried to invade, the government bring in conscription would you say "No, I'm not fighting, you can't make me" or would you join up and help in defending your country? That's what conscription's about in my mind.

would you say "No, I'm not fighting, you can't make me" or would you join up and help in defending your country?Weighing up your chances might be a good bet. I think I'd probably rather be invaded and alive than patriotic and dead.

As unfortunate as it is, military is needed, since without it you become a target (even to well-intending long-time buddies). And since it is natural that everyone should be able to defend himself, conscriptism is needed.

However, I have three big issues in how it is handled in Finland.
1. Women freed of service.
2. Religious whatnot freed of service.
3. Civil-service, the only option to military-service, is discouraged and twice as long.

If there is conscriptism, it needs to handle the whole population equally. So Finland doesn't only disciminate part of the population, but also tries to deter people from choosing any other alternatives. Having met a fair number of people, who defend the current system, it strikes as pompous patriotism where everyone does exactly like the patriots say and "end of discussion."

So I joined the civil-service just to show them the middle-finger and gain a year's worth of work-experience on the way. Conscriptism is a valid option only if everyone does it, no matter religion, skin colour, age, or sex, and a equal option is given to those who don't want to go to the army. Sadly, Finland has failed in this.

2. Religious whatnot freed of service. This I can agree with, being exempt from conscription for religious reasons is not valid. The law is above the religion in this case. It's not like I can build a religion that believes taxing to be wrong and therefore be exempt from taxing. :rolleyes:


3. Civil-service, the only option to military-service, is discouraged and twice as long. Military service is obviously the preferation. Civil service is just a compromise option during peace-time. The laws of Finland are such that ethical reasons do not stand when war actually breaks out and draft is initiated. So basically those who take civil-service in peace time would have to be trained during war time which is more expensive and strains the war effort, so obviously the military service is preferable.

Also the notion that civil-service is twice as long is complete crap in my opinion. Some get away with six months, others with nine and about a third of all conscripts must be the full twelve month period against their will, including a whole bunch of my friends. If the civil-service was actually cut to six months then it would not be equal (which I don't support anyway) but a preferable option.

Also in civil-service you are typically free after max eight hours of work leaving the rest of the day to you. In army the usual free time is three hours which is more often than not cut into two or even one hours. Not to mention that at camps it's basically a full 24/7 service with only a few hours of sleep.

The only cut I would agree to the civil-service it's taking the one extra month away and making it last twelve months. Other than that you are showing preference to the option that is in no rasonable way preferable.

[ December 16, 2006, 18:32: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

My service in the military covered both the conscript and the voluntary army. Ragusa is totally right about the difference between the two. With the creation of the all volunteer army crime and drug abuse went to an all time high. No pun intended.
That said I am still against conscription except in real emergency. I am totally against drafting women except in skilled non-combat roles. Someone has to stay behind and keep things going and it is hard to find young females who can run miles with a heavy load. I can't remember where it was I read it but only the top 7% of women in the military could match the bottom 7% of the men. I know it was a US gov report but I read it years ago.

SimDing0- Ever live in an occupied country? I haven't and don't think I could without fighting my A** off.

Lol, what makes a man better at firing a gun than a woman?

@Barmy Army
Nothing to do with shooting, has to do with equiptment loads and who is left home during the fighting. Did you ever see a small woman try to carry the 85-90 lb toolbox to a chopper at a run? Someone has to carry gear just to be in a position to shoot and men are as a rule stronger.
On a personal note I don't think I could keep my mind on what I was doing if I was trying to watch out for a young woman on the front line. This is my personal failing but I wonder how many other men share it. Don't flame me please, not sexist just human nature!

Lol, what makes a man better at firing a gun than a woman?There's more to military service than shooting. It's very physical, and life in a combat zone is extremely demanding (so I hear, fortunately I've never tried myself ;) ). And, whether it's PC to say it or not, men are on average much stronger than women.

I'm not flaming, it's just that I know a few women who would eat your ears off for saying you can do something that they can't! :D

With the proper training and discipline, I think either sex can achieve pretty much the same. Just look at sports, women aren't a million years men these days.

Barmy Army, didn't mean you, I was afraid the women would "eat my ears off"!
I don't think you can even use sports as an example. How about having the girls play a mens pro football team? I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I am all for equal rights however as Montresor said "men are on average much stronger than women". This in a fight is most often what maters.

With the proper training and discipline, I think either sex can achieve pretty much the same.Yes, pulling the trigger takes a lot of strenght. Think it this way: women tend to be more social, so they would be more ferocious to defend their pals. According of some study, soldiers actually shoot to defend their team-mates, so women would be more apt in the job. Kill easier, shed a few more tears later, and then "But I got over it, sister!"

So basically those who take civil-service in peace time would have to be trained during war timeYes, another thing that needs to be changed. Many flaws in the finnish law in this matter. I remember quite vividly how one of the so-called soldiers commented about civil-servants: "Cannonfodder and good riddance!" Reflects the attitudes some people have, perhaps because of their military training...

If the civil-service was actually cut to six months then it would not be equalHead that before. They are two different things and you cannot make a comparison based solely on working hours. Perhaps the conscripts should do 8 hour days for twice as long, eh? That would be another way to even it out.

that at camps it's basically a full 24/7 service06.00-21.00 regular days. Lights off at 21.00. Morning duties at 06.00 and call to line at 06.15, IIRC. Life of a dog, if you ask me, and still the patriots think that it is a great priviledge no one has the right to opt out of.

you are showing preference to the option that is in no rasonable way preferablePerhaps not the patriots, who can think only their own mouth. Also, when and if everyone is made equally draft'able, several women and religious worshippers must have another option. The alternative is throwing these people into jail as dissidents, like Finland is doing now. Or, in war time, simply placing them before the firing squad.

Every year 50 people are jailed because of this and more are afraid to voice their opinions as a result. United Nations, European Union, and Amnesty International have critisized the practise, but the prime-minister responded by throwing the suggestions into a trash-bin. If you thought that US is the only one breaking human rights, you can add Finland to the list (Source (http://www.aseistakieltaytyjaliitto.fi/ihmisoikeuselimet.html), check the links).

[ December 16, 2006, 23:51: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

Conscription wouldn't be used in a war like that.

Put it this way, if someone attacked the US directly and tried to invade, the government bring in conscription would you say "No, I'm not fighting, you can't make me" or would you join up and help in defending your country? That's what conscription's about in my mind. I'll bet Bush is setting up for a draft, and personally, I don't want to be drafted. But because I live in Massachusetts, if we got invaded by anyone except Russia or South America, Mass would be first, and I think I would take up arms if it is worth it. If we did something stupid to provoke invasion, then I'd rather be alive and invaded than (as SimDing0 said) patriotic and dead. If someone came and tried to enslave us all for being American, I would fight against them (preferably guerilla style, like in Red Dawn :p , but I guess the US Army is better than being dead...).


religious worshippers must have another optionThats bull****. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't have a moral antipathy towards fighting. I hate fighting, but because I'm an atheist its alright for me to go and die for the country?

Yes, another thing that needs to be changed. Many flaws in the finnish law in this matter. While cannon fodder is taking it too far, no one is actually going to care about your personal ethical determination at the time of great crisis. Cannon Fodder is a huge overstatement but in crisis everyone is to do their part. While some militarists certainly would like to go the "cannon fodder" way with civil-servants that won't happen. A part of the Finnish success in the winter war was due to high morality, treating troops badly is demoralizing and not good for the war effort. On the other hand if possible civil servants should be assigned to logistics, perhaps as drivers, medics or other weapon free duties, but if required they should be under the same obligation as anyone else.

They are two different things and you cannot make a comparison based solely on working hours. Perhaps the conscripts should do 8 hour days for twice as long, eh? That would be another way to even it out. You keep forgetting that nearly a third of all conscript allready do that for twice as long. Six months for civil-service is unreasonable for those doing the military service and won't happen. Nine months I can grudgingly accept but in my opinion twelve months for civil-service is the way to go.

Not to mention that those who have gone

Every year 50 people are jailed because of this and more are afraid to voice their opinions as a result. United Nations, European Union, and Amnesty International have critisized the practise, but the prime-minister responded by throwing the suggestions into a trash-bin. If you thought that US is the only one breaking human rights, you can add Finland to the list Great to see you quote a neutral source. :rolleyes:

In any case Amnesty International lost the respect of most Finns by doing that stunt and its comments are not taken seriously by most of the population. The European Union has not condemned the Finnish conscription laws, if they had this thing would be in EU courts which it is not. It is funny though how human rights are violated every time you have to do something you don't like. I bet they'll quote on human rights soon when they have to pay taxes. :rolleyes:

Perhaps not the patriots, who can think only their own mouth. We are talking about conscription as a way to organize the national defence. The main priority in defence is the manpower so obviously military service is preferable. I'd like to see you prove otherwise. Civil-service is an artificial alternative built for those who for a reason or the other have problems with the army. This is in my opinion good since someone who opposes weaponry or has other ethical dilemmas with the institution has an alternative instead of going to jail. It is a way to compensate the military service, it has never been prioritized and never will be. The military is the primary option and civil-service comes only secondary. People should be encouraged to pick the primary option and a shorter duration certainly is the way.

As a sidenote. I'm not a huge patriot (though I do like this country in many ways) but I'm a realist. If civil-service was six months then it is very possible that I would have very likely chosen it as an option. After all why really bother with the enormous changes to life you have to cope with in the army, when you can just go on a bit like you used to? It is quite a treshold stepping into the military and if people start finding civil-service more attractive our manpower will decrease and holding a conscript army will become difficult if not impossible forcing us to seek other options, options which in my opinion would be worse than the current.

EDIT: Thats bull****. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't have a moral antipathy towards fighting. I hate fighting, but because I'm an atheist its alright for me to go and die for the country? This is special right reserved for Jehova's Witnesses only. They are a very small minority who protested for years against the system and went to jail because of it, so in the end they were made exempt from conscription for far reaching cultural reasons. I certainly do not agree with this decision, their values and morals are not higher than anyone elses who decides to protest against the current system. Other religious groups are conscriptable.

Harbourboy is right. Conscription is a silly idea. I remember talking to a few kiwi's who were in the Veitnam war and the number of complaints they had about how useless conscripted American soldiers were...

In a small country like New Zealand, conscription would serve no use at all, military wise. If, for some unbeknown reason, we were to get invaded, even having half our population serving in the army simply would not make a difference. Not only do we lack the people, but also the economy to be able to afford enough technology capable of defending ourselves.

In todays world though, is there really a point of conscription? Technology and money is the winner of wars - much more so than man power.

As unfortunate as it is, military is needed, since without it you become a target (even to well-intending long-time buddies). And since it is natural that everyone should be able to defend himself, conscriptism is needed.Wordplay, this is not true in the slightest. Once again, take New Zealand as an example. Our army, small as it is, is more often than not entirely deployed over seas, working in peacekeeping roles. Our airforce consists of a few training planes and one or two helecopters and the navy is made of entirely of patrol boats.

Yet only once has there ever been a threat of invasion - by Japan in WW2. And even then none of our troops were pulled back from Europe. I'm not exaggerating when I say all we had to defend ourselves with were tractors with corrigated iron covering them and old WW1 air guns pulled from museams. There simply was no point - if the Japanesse got to New Zealand, even with our entire Army here, we wouldn't stand a chance.

Put it this way, if someone attacked the US directly and tried to invade, the government bring in conscription would you say "No, I'm not fighting, you can't make me" or would you join up and help in defending your country? That's what conscription's about in my mind.I'm with Saber here. Better occupied and alive than patriotic and dead. There are better ways to fight than conscription. And like Saber said, if the country was threatened, you can bet the number of recruits would shoot up.


As for the best way I feel to set up our defences, for a country of New Zealand's size and landscape (not that we really need defences) the best way by far would be a small elite army, trained in guerilla warfare - as to be honest, that's the only way New Zealand would ever stand a chance at defending itself.

In todays world though, is there really a point of conscription? Technology and money is the winner of wars - much more so than man power. Well yes I suppose we could scrap conscription and go nuclear. It's not like building a nuke would be a serious problem to any country with nuclear energy.

The main point with conscription is working as a deterrent. Practically the only threat to Finland will be Russia, it's not an active threat now but you can never tell what it will look like ten or twenty years from now. Practically our chances of surviving an attack of Russia is zero so conscription mainly functions as a way to arm the people and fuel the insurgency, making invasion too expensive to be a reasonable option.

I'm with Saber here. Better occupied and alive than patriotic and dead. There are better ways to fight than conscription. And like Saber said, if the country was threatened, you can bet the number of recruits would shoot up. If we would have chosen this path in WWII a major part would have probably ended up genocided or deported and our death count would be significantly higher from that war than it is now.
Also recruits who can't handle the gun and other equipment are useless. You can't just train the entire population a few months before the war, they must have some basics in the background.

I am strongly opposed to conscription - the idea of fighting and possibly dying for something that at best I'm basically apathetic towards and at worst am totally opposed to really, deeply doesn't interest me.

I don't care how much sense it makes from a national defense viewpoint - I want no part in it.

I remember that I was always somewhat annoyed when comrades expressed a sense of futility about war. "When it gets hot they'll press a button and the show's over!". Wrong attitude. Technology and money is the winner of wars - much more so than man powerTraditional Infantry, soldiers, have a role in war. I would suggest to look to Iraq and Afghanistan, where a low tech resistance successfully binds and slows down an enemy who's technologically vastly superior and has superior training.

Wordplay, this is not true in the slightest. Once again, take New Zealand as an example. Our army, small as it is, is more often than not entirely deployed over seas, working in peacekeeping roles. Perhaps. I just have recently studied the history and it has made me doubt the idea of being completely defenceless. Granted, it has clear benefits, since maintaining military costs a whole lot of money. This money could be used so much better during the time of peace, when military has nothing better to do than buy new toys.

But! It takes just one crazy politician in a wrong position to cause a war, Bush being a prime example of this. Should the same happen in Russia, Finland would have some serious problems to deal with. Perhaps EU would help, but in the end it would come down to pitting finnish military against the invaders. Failure to do so would mean the massacre of finnish population and civilizations.

IMO, EU should have a military of its own so that each country could share the costs of military and, perhaps, Finland could then get rid of conscription.

Cannon Fodder is a huge overstatement but in crisis everyone is to do their part-- if possible civil servants should be assigned to logistics, perhaps as drivers, medics or other weapon free dutiesExactly, but my point was that the attitudes towards making civil-service an equal choise are very harsh and oppressive. One of the main reasons why I chose civil-service instead of just completing my pioneer-training. The other reasons were work-experience and personal liberty. We can't go on thinking that "the war is right behind the corner."

Thats bull****.Yeah, in Finland's current situation. I was saying that the situation has to change so that everyone should have the option between equally long military-service and civil-service.

You keep forgetting that nearly a third of all conscript allready do that for twice as long.First time you bring this up. No, I haven't forgotten it. Just like there is a discriminated option between civil- and military-service, there are options of how you want to do your military-service. Do you want to be a driver? OK, you have to stay for twice as long. Leader? Twice as long. So if people want to stay longer to become a leader, fine. It just isn't part of the default setup.

What you are saying is simply that ~30% chooses a non-default career-path during the mandatory service period. This leaves ~70% who just want to get out ASAP. The military also has a habit of trying to assign people to longer training-programs if they do not strongly reject the idea. You know: name to the paper, say that you are going here, and if there is no absolute refusal, there is no problem either.

Great to see you quote a neutral source.Notice the words "Check the links." For some reason the board gave me an error when I tried to give a direct link to the material presented by EU, UN, and Amnesty. The reliability of EU and UN is undisputed.

The military is the primary option and civil-service comes only secondary.No, they both have to be equal choises. Don't think only of your own mouth. Military is not and should not be the only way to go.

the idea of fighting and possibly dying for something that at best I'm basically apathetic towards and at worst am totally opposed to really, deeply doesn't interest me.I know what you mean, but during war you would have only bad choises: 1) you leave the country ASAP, 2) you risk the enemy bullets in army, or 3) you get shot by the military police or the invading soldiers, whichever gets you first. Not that #1 is that bad, depending of your point of view, but it's sure as hell that your own will be as eager to put you down as the enemy when they learn of your intentions.

I must agree with wordplay, i cant see why military service should be better then civil service or why people choosing civil service should be forced to work longer then people who take military service.

for the vast majority of conscripts, the time spend there, is something they just have to be done with, so they can continue thier normal life.

For me it was an annoying vaste of time, where my monthly income dropped by 2000kr (roughly 200£) each month after taxes. very annoying.

in Denmark the rules are close to the Finnish, we have a core of profesionels, which are the only soldiers who can be send abroad and we have the conscripts.

the military service only last 4months, to get your the basic training, to be considered a soldier, you then have to sign for another 6month training and 6months abroad/standby

the civil service, now also only last 4months.

the only reason not to join any of this are medical reasons. Religius people, that wont serve neither go to jail.

now seeing the current reforms here in Denmark, i think we are only a couple of steps from a complete voulentery military. when i was in the military, there was so many voulentiers, that they lacked training supplies for all, that clearly showed that our military could be formed solely of people who wanted too.

regarding women, i think its rediculus that we claim to have equal rights, when womn are not conscripted and when they voulentire they get a contract they can cancel with two weeks notice, while males either gets conscripted or voulentire, but even when voulentired are forced to serve the 4months.

I agree with Rotku. Conscription would be pointless in New Zealand. I'd be a hopeless army person, unless you made me the military librarian or chef or something.

Just like there is a discriminated option between civil- and military-service, there are options of how you want to do your military-service. Do you want to be a driver? OK, you have to stay for twice as long. Leader? Twice as long It is not a choice. Probably half become leaders out of free will (if even so many), with drivers it's a bit more common since there are often enough of voulenteers. Point being that it is not a choice, other people decide this for you and they don't allways respect your wishes. I had several friends in the army who were forced for twelve months.

No, they both have to be equal choises. Don't think only of your own mouth. Military is not and should not be the only way to go. I really do not think that civil-service should be equal since it exists only to compensate the military part. Sure you should not be branded as b-class citizen and should allowed the same possibilities in life but the service itself needs to be longer, if for no other reason then because the military part requires a lot more work, adjustment and stress. When you cut civil service to six months you not only are guaranteed the shortest possible time of service but additionally you get a lot easier work without making serious adjustments to your life. This is encouraging to taking the civil-service and that's not sensible defence policy. However I think we'll have to just agree to disagree with this one.

For some reason the board gave me an error when I tried to give a direct link to the material presented by EU, UN, and Amnesty. The reliability of EU and UN is undisputed. Quite frankly I don't consider these choices to have anything to do with Amnesty and UN. With EU it has and EU is free to challenge it in its own court of human rights which have not condemned the Finnish form of conscription, and don't show any signs of challenging it anytime soon.

However I do think that the Finnish conscription system is condemned to fail, not because anyone from the outside forces it but because the temptation of scrapping the system becomes too great when the generations that actually saw war on Finnish soil die away and new ones forget the importance of defence. A decicion later generations will regret.

I always felt that the use of conscription and drafting were to be used in only the most dire of situations. Petty wars such as the "War on Terror," and other such conflicts, where the country in question [US] is hardly in a desperate struggle for survival, should never constitute a draft in my opinion. In wars such as WWI and II however, where the very existence of my country would be at stake, I would have absolutely no issue with conscription/drafting, even if it was me that was being called to fight.

Technology and money is the winner of wars - much more so than man power.This is precisely the attitude that has led to so many problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would lead to just as many problems in a conventional war.

American infantry have the Dragon missile, which can reliably KO any AFV in the world. China (and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc) have the Kornet, which is nearly as good.

Choppers are extraordinarily vulnerable to ground fire, small arms and machineguns alike (this was confirmed in OIF when an entire effing battalion of Apaches was rendered combat ineffective for weeks by machinegun and assault rifle fire; that's the reason doctrine now has choppers avoiding urban areas in Iraq).

Now, infantry don't do so well vs. fixed-wing aircraft or artillery, but there're plenty of MPAD systems available, plenty of mobie AA and SAMs, and likewise plenty of counterbattery radar systems.

In modern wars, weapons have up to a 50% kill chance--not hit, kill. This is why tank battles in Desert Storm were so quick in comparison to the length of time they lasted in WWII.

This is not to suggest that choppers, AFVs, artillery, or aircraft are irrelevant to war. They're important, even vital. But they don't (with, perhaps, the exception of artillery) overshadow the infantryman.

Traditional Infantry, soldiers, have a role in war. I would suggest to look to Iraq and Afghanistan, where a low tech resistance successfully binds and slows down an enemy who's technologically vastly superior and has superior training.Yet slowing down the enemy did not change the end result. Even if they had conscription in place, I would happily place money that the technology superior country would come out on top, if backed by the right finances (this case the USA).

If we would have chosen this path in WWII a major part would have probably ended up genocided or deported and our death count would be significantly higher from that war than it is now.Do you expect a war like WWII ever to happen again? Anything anywhere near its standards? I know I don't - but then, I guess people said the same thing about the Great War, the war to end all wars.

And sorry AMaster, I'm really not sure what you're saying there.

I really do not think that civil-service should be equal since it exists only to compensate the military part. Sure you should not be branded as b-class citizen and should allowed the same possibilities in life but the service itself needs to be longer, if for no other reason then because the military part requires a lot more work, adjustment and stress. When you cut civil service to six months you not only are guaranteed the shortest possible time of service but additionally you get a lot easier work without making serious adjustments to your life. This is encouraging to taking the civil-service and that's not sensible defence policy. However I think we'll have to just agree to disagree with this one. You say civil service or military service dont´force anyone to make serius adjustments of thier life? well i went down 20% in pay during military service and i wasn't payed well, several of the other people i was in with, worked as carpenters and such like and lost over 50% income pr month during thier military service. I dont know where you life, but such an income cut is hard when you have your own appartment.

Secondly for me it affectly ment i had to take a forced break from studies, i could have prostponed it to after the university, but at that time i would be 26 years old and even worse posisted with the economical cut.

Do you expect a war like WWII ever to happen again? Anything anywhere near its standards? I know I don't - but then, I guess people said the same thing about the Great War, the war to end all wars. I certainly am not naive enough to believe that Finns or Europeans in general have fought their last war. It may take centuries or it may take fifty years but there will be war again on European soil.

Yet slowing down the enemy did not change the end result. It did so in Vietnam and it did so in winter war.

@Equester

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I stated that civil-service requires less adjustment than military service. I never said that military service does not required adjustments, which it obviously does quite a lot. The adjustments with civil-service are mostly financial and to those who study the financial adjustments should not be all that great.

my point was that both requires great adjustment, both require financial adjustment, which for many is quite the hardest, sorry but i din't find the days in mili hard, just long, with way to much wasted time.

Secondly while i was a student or rather between studies when i got in, many people are not. a lot in the danish military, goes in after the gradute from some from of cerpenter work, which they mainly due around the age of 18-20. these people get a hard financial cut (they literaly loose 50% or more each months, thats hard when you dont life home), which could be avoided by making the military completely voulentary.

thirdly i cant really see why you want the civil service to be longer then military service, other then as a punishment for not going in the military. which affecefly make that choice unequal.

IMO conscription is self-defeatist...because there is no point in making people fight who don't want to...

You need to be motivated and sufficiently invested to put your life on the line and fight for your country...being forced to do that means you are just going to do a crap job... :heh:

I really do not know anything about the Danish army nor how it works so I can't really comment about it. The military service is different in different countries.

In Finland the government provides all you need to live during the time of your military service, you get a very small basic salary for each day (2.8euros I think) which is enough to buy you food when at home. They also sponsor trips home and pay your rent, so really the financial cut is irrelevant since you're back to as it was before when you get out.

Civil-service requires no other than financial adjustment. It does not require you to live in a barracks, and get used to the military lifestyle which is very different from that which you enjoy in the civillian life. It should be longer because the work hours are shorter than in the army. In the army you are basically in service 24/7 barring the weekends when you get leaves but that's not really guaranteed allways. In civil-service you have same kind of hours as in normal work. I really do not consider 25/7 service in six months and 8 hours service five days a week for six months to be equal, and I don't get how it possibly could even be equal. When they set up camps for civil-service workers where they have to live 24/7 and otherwise have similar daily routines as in the military then I can agree with that.

Having served in an all-volunteer force, I would not want to serve in a conscripted force.

However, I believe every young man and woman should be required to do service for their world, country, community, or religion.

That would mean a system where there would be choices such as:

Religious mission.
Peace Corps.
City service to include fire fighting, police, parks district, hospital 'candy striper' and shelters.
State forestry department.
Department of Interior (national parks).
Department of Defense.
Plus many more that I just can't think of right now.

Some of these would provide pay, some would not. But all would count toward 'conscription' requirements.

However, I believe every young man and woman should be required to do service for their world, country, community, or religion. Why? I serve my country just fine by doing the job that I do. As a teenager, I had the important job of working in the supermarket. That is a vital role to the smooth running of the community. Who is to say that being a missionary or a cannon fodder soldier is more important than ensuring that everybody has access to fresh food in an orderly manner?

I agree wholeheartedly with Harbourboy, civilians are not useless, far from it!

Why? I serve my country just fine by doing the job that I do. Ah, yes. You quite succinctly put forward the philosophy that significantly hindered volunteerism (a program promoted by Colin Powell). It seems that people who have never given back to the community, can never see that paying taxes and being a law-abiding citizen is not enough for the community to prosper.

One of the biggest problems throughout America is the growing trend of people being self-absorbed -- 'if it doesn't impact me, it's not my problem.' The inner-city schools suck but it's not a big issue for the suburbs (which is where the affluent live). There are children living in poverty without proper clothing or enough food (children starve to death and freeze to death every year), but it's not a problem to most Americans because we don't see it.

Without volunteerism and a connection to the community at large too many people just wallow in their own apathy -- they don't vote for measures to help, they don't volunteer to help, they don't want to know. In many people's mind, the government should be taking care of the problem -- after all, that's what taxes are for. The big misconception they have is there are not enough dollars and not enough people helping to fix the problems.

By having people get involved early in their lives I believe it will provide a basis for what they do in the future. Otherwise, apathy will continue to hold America (and the entire world) by the throat.

Civil-service requires no other than financial adjustment. It does not require you to live in a barracks, and get used to the military lifestyle which is very different from that which you enjoy in the civillian life. It should be longer because the work hours are shorter than in the army.Civil-service is work without pay and you either work or go to jail. It has a name too: slavery. You get no compensation for your work and if you refuse to work, there are consequences. That is how Finland treats its citizens.

Don't forget that civil-service requires several things: a) an apartment, b) rent/expenses paid, c) a public institute willing to take you, d) participation to a month long "education" program in barrack -like enviroment, and e) doing your job, or else... This means that you have to forsake your previous job, city, apartment, and livelihood in search of a new one for the period of the service. And to crown it, the money earned by the work goes to the same government that decided to punish you for not going to military.

What EU and UN said is revelant, since it is true. Finland has some serious issues it refuses to fix. This, certainly, can't do much good for the public image of the country.

I could agree upon your definition on civil-service and it needs a big reform, because it's in no way educational and therefore just a useless way to compensate the more useful military service.

However I will have to say something about the points you presented so that you won't be giving the wrong picture how things work here. First of all the government pays your rent so that's not a problem and you recieve that which someone who is unemployed would recieve as daily support which in this country is more than enough to support your life and none of this goes to rent, so financially you're not much worse off than those doing the military service if not even better off. Also you're previous employer has no right to cut your contract so after the civil-service the work would go on as usual.

What EU and UN said is revelant, since it is true. Finland has some serious issues it refuses to fix. This, certainly, can't do much good for the public image of the country. Neither have yet to openly condemn it. Finland has sat in the human rights council of the UN several times, this would be impossible if they saw us as an active criminal against human rights which just goes to show that no-one is really taking the charges seriously.

Without volunteerism Yeah, but it's not volunteerism if you make everyone do it!

Actually, if it's not voluntary, it is slavery. It is something you are forced to do against your will, at gunpoint (if you don't believe this, try refusing to serve, and then try to resist being arrested, and I'm sure you'll see a gun pretty soon!).

The fact that I was born north of Germany, south of Norway, east of England and west of Sweden doesn't mean that I owe my life, or any part of it, to the Danish state or government, or that I recognize their right to dispose of me, my life and my property.

I believe I can serve the community a lot better by working voluntarily in a field I find interesting - and being paid for my work (I produce something of value, and I expect to be compensated for that!), than I can by working for the "common good" with something that doesn't interest me, at gunpoint, for whatever the government wishes to pay me. As such, serving my self-interest is actually the best way of serving society in general - if it didn't serve anybody's interest, nobody would pay me for my work!

Actually, if it's not voluntary, it is slavery. I never actually bought this theory about military service being slavery. It's something done for the common good and protection against hostile intrusions, not to profit anyone. I believe in Denmark you also have mandatory education, is this too slavery? The child nor his/hers parents have any right to decide otherwise. The child must go to school until he or she is seventeen years. I don't hear anyone calling that slavery.

Conscription only takes a fraction of your lifetime anyway. It's not like you're soldier for life. Also while you might be doing much better good in your civillian life, will the case be the same in times of war? I doubt it.

If military service is all so la-do-da wonderful, then people would do it voluntarily. The fact that none of us want to be army people kind of tells me that it's not a good thing, therefore I don't want to be forced to do it. Again, I will add that I would be useless as a soldier anyway, so there would be little point in conscripting me.

And sorry AMaster, I'm really not sure what you're saying there.Short version: manpower is at least as important as money and technology when fighting a war.

If military service is all so la-do-da wonderful, then people would do it voluntarily. The fact that none of us want to be army people kind of tells me that it's not a good thing, therefore I don't want to be forced to do it. Again, I will add that I would be useless as a soldier anyway, so there would be little point in conscripting me.Most countries have conscription laws in case of war anyway. Military service is preparing the people for the worst. It's not "wonderful" in the way that I would have done it if it was completley voulentary. Not just worth it from my personal perspective. After all why should I have to fight if my neighbour does not? There are very few people who would actually like war, I certainly would not want it. But then, if you don't want to fight then how do you expect someone to fight for you? Do you expect finding protection in some other country or do you believe the occupiers will be nice enough to let you go on with your life as you used to?

If my country got invaded, then it wouldn't matter one bit whether I fought in the army or not, because we'd get taken over anyway. So, I'd either just bow down to the new rules of the new government (good luck to anyone who actually wants to be in the government) or if it was someone really evil and Hitler-like who wanted to kill everyone, then I'd get killed anyway - which is the same result as if I had gone and become an army man. So, it does seem a tad pointless for me to be conscripted into the army.

As Ragusa said that is not a very healthy attitude to think that defeat would be inevitable anyhow. There has been quite a few victories against overwhelming odds and while those odds might not be that great they are much better than the other option of falling to the enemy and their designs without ever putting up a fight. When someone invades it's quite reasonable to think that they don't have the good of the people in their mind.

Maybe not overly healthy, but then nor is been killed in an impossible fight.

I think it is a very healthy and sensible attitude.

Option 1: Train for ages for fight that may never happen. If fight happens, will likely get killed.

Option 2: Get on with more productive activities, like making things, feeding people, looking after children, paying taxes. If fight happens, might get killed. Might have to pay taxes to new leader. Might be able to escape to different country.

Option 2 seems much more sensible than option 1.

It is a continous process, people do not actually sacrfice their lives for this training but only six months to a year. Now in a lifetime that is not much to pay. However I unfortunaetly see that your kind of thinking will be taking over. War will be forgotten and people will grow all too accustomed to peace to be prepared for war. At that point some petty little dictatorship will be free to do as it pleases and oppress the people to no end. But hey, atleast we can say that we defended peace through peaceful means, whatever that's worth. :rolleyes:

I think if you're put in a position where it's either 'kill those guys' or 'get killed and never see your family again' you're going to try just as hard as the next guy. I don't see conscription changing that. Kill or be killed is a powerful motivator.

It is a continous process, people do not actually sacrfice their lives for this training but only six months to a year. Now in a lifetime that is not much to pay. However I unfortunaetly see that your kind of thinking will be taking over. War will be forgotten and people will grow all too accustomed to peace to be prepared for war. At that point some petty little dictatorship will be free to do as it pleases and oppress the people to no end. But hey, atleast we can say that we defended peace through peaceful means, whatever that's worth Load of BS. first of none of us, has said remove the military, the general trend has been remove the conscripted part, let it rely soully on voulenteers.

thier is no logic reason, to deprive society of able hands in 4months, its completely stupid. either your force them in the military or you force them to do some job they dont want to, you cut thier pay...oh there is another thing thier, you keep ignoring my point about pay or belittle it. do you have any idea how hard is it for a 20year old contracter with a steady job, a pay around the 20.000kr and his first child, to suddenly find himself taken away from it, put in another job or the mili and his monthly income cut to 8.000 with 2.000 extra, to cover part of the rent. not to mention is employer, who suddenly lose a man for 4months with no compensation given.

conscription is waste of time and a waste for society, its a leftover from world war 2.

Consider this: If people do not want to fight for something, then it is not worth fighting for.

The government may think that fighting for the country is of utmost importance - but then, they would think that now, wouldn't they? They have a lot invested in their country and are enjoying the power and so such that it brings (or more likely - the people in the government don't believe that it's worth risking their own lives for but are quite happy to have others do so for their benefit).

To the average person maybe the country isn't worth fighting for. Sure - some may believe that it is - they're the ones who sign up for the military voluntarily.

So why should those that don't believe that it's worth fighting for be forced to sign up to prepare to fight for it (and be presumably forced to fight for it if a war broke out) when it's only a very small number of people who hold this belief that their country is worth fighting and dying over?

thier is no logic reason, to deprive society of able hands in 4months, its completely stupid. either your force them in the military or you force them to do some job they dont want to, you cut thier pay...oh there is another thing thier, you keep ignoring my point about pay or belittle it. do you have any idea how hard is it for a 20year old contracter with a steady job, a pay around the 20.000kr and his first child, to suddenly find himself taken away from it, put in another job or the mili and his monthly income cut to 8.000 with 2.000 extra, to cover part of the rent. not to mention is employer, who suddenly lose a man for 4months with no compensation given. Around here the entire rent is covered by the state. The spouse will get some support but it's also possible postpone stepping into the military if the current situation makes it impossible. For people with loans this is difficult, but then it is suggested to get the military out of the way before considering children or gettin an appartment. There are some to who the military service brings big difficulties because of their life situation but more often than not it's because of their poor planning and even then it's not a problem that can't be overcome.

conscription is waste of time and a waste for society, its a leftover from world war 2. It's an inheritance from ww2. A country can't survive a large scale conflict without full conscription. Voulenteers won't be enough against a conscripted army. That is why nearly all countries have some sort of laws of full conscription when the crisis comes. Some bigger countries can afford partial conscription or even and entirely private army. For smaller countrys like Finland with a large land area the troop amount gathered from voulenteers just won't be enough under any circumstances.

@Aik

It's not even that much to defend your country but to defend yourself, your family, your possessions and your lifestyle. You don't find those worth fighting for? I'm not that enthusiastic about going to war for the country but I doubt that any neighbouring nation will be accepting a five million refugees anytime soon. Only a very tiny portion will have any chance of escape so unless you are part of that tiny portion of the population the only reasonable option will be to stay and fight or give in to the enemy, and surrender to their mercy and hope that are more humane that occupiers in general tend to be.

Conscription for a war scenario should only be as an absolute last resort. I don't see it happening in any of the Wetern countries, Nukes are likely to come earlier.

Military service outside of war: I don't personally agree with it, but can see the perceived benefits of providing some discipline to moronic teenagers that would otherwise be out causing trouble (massive over-generalisation I know). I quite like the sound of the Polish model Chev described recently, where under-acheivers have to do military service.

1. Service is not slavery. It is fulfilling a debt.

2. Volunteerism is significantly waning in society -- therefore, service is the next option to promote a better society (as I said there should be many options for service, some I left out in my previous post: teaching in high risk areas, medical work at clinics in low income areas, basically giving people training to help their community and giving them jobs).

3. HB: Much of option 2 sounds too much like cowardice to me. I would oppose it with every breath I take. I believe my home, my family and my country are worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for. But then, I chose to serve in the military (and my feelings are pretty common in that group of peers). I don't understand the philosophy you prescribe to, nor would I ever want to. As a result, you may live longer, but I would not want that kind of life.

HB, you appear to be an example of what I'm really talking about -- not a very strong sense of community belonging. Based on what you've said, you would rather leave when things get bad rather than dig in and make things better. I could be wrong and I would quickly apologize for such a rash assumption -- but I believe the sentiment is fairly common. By getting people involved (or invested) in the community, those people develop ties to others in that community and become more apt to help make the community a better place for everyone. But then, I could be wrong (I often am) and I know there will always be those who will oppose anything that causes them discomfort -- no matter the reward.

By the way, for those who do not seem to understand the logistics.... It takes a minimum of four months to get a marginally trained grunt. Up to two years to get a highly qualified specialist who can really use some of the high tech stuff the military has. It is impractical to wait until time of war to conscript a fighting force -- such a war would be lost before the first conscripts ever received basic training. A wartime philosophy of conscripting for a threat is a self-defeating philosophy, not realistic, and very short sighted.

my country are worth fighting for Why is a "country" worth fighting for? I think I agree with what Aikanaro said. And I think that it is a bit brash to go around suggesting that people who work hard for their families are being somewhat lazy and cowardly, just because that don't want to tramp around in camouflage and shoot people. I work damn hard for my family so don't try and tell me that I am somehow letting them down by not being a militaristic soldier.

And I think that it is a bit brash to go around suggesting that people who work hard for their families are being somewhat lazy and cowardly, just because that don't want to tramp around in camouflage and shoot people. I did not limit community service to military service. And I have not said you are letting your family down. However, those who are not involved in helping their community (city, providence/state, national) ARE letting down those around them -- and it may very well affect their family.

Considering how the New Zealand military is a joke when comparing it to the sheer size and scale of the militaries of other countries and the fact that New Zealand is a small island in the south pacific with very little strategic value - unless you're planning on invading Australia - conscription simply wouldn't work or be worth the effort.

I dare say if New Zealand was attacked then the entire might of all English speaking nations and then some would rally to our aid. We simply don't have any enemies so I guess the point of conscription is moot since I doubt it'll ever happen.

However on that note the only time I can see conscription being justified is when the country is under direct threat. I would also probably sign up to avoid the draft if it came to that. Last thing I want is to be in a company of draftees when I could be surrounded by professional soldiers who actually know what they're doing.

OK, I'm a little late to this thread, but what in the world is a "private army"? You mean hiring out foreign mercenaries? Do you mean a professional army? Of course, that wouldn't make sense either because you can have a professional army consisting of volunteers or conscripts, and you have consripts and volunteers listed as seperate options. I guess I need more info on what a private army is before I can vote.

Private army would be a compeltely proffessional army. Voulenteer army would be an option where military training would be available for all those who want but not forced on anyone. The voulenteers would not be doing this for their living (unless they partake in peacekeeping missions or some such but that's a bit different). The current US system would fall under a private army and a large conscripted reserve, since there are laws for forced draft.

EDTI: Professional army would have been a better and more clear option, but hopefully this clears the confusion.

However, those who are not involved in helping their community (city, providence/state, national) ARE letting down those around them -- and it may very well affect their family. Why do you have to volunteer for service to be of value? Is a paid fireman any worse at putting out fires than a volunteer one? Surely the paid fireman should get respect for the work he does putting out fires and not have to then do some extra volunteer work on the side to be considered a valuable member of the community.

Morgoroth,

The U.S. system is currently an all volunteer army, but it is also a professional army, as they are full-time soldiers. It is true that the U.S. has a reserve system as well - they have jobs other than being a soldier - to be called up at times of war, but the reserve is also an all-volunteer force. (You sign up voluntarily, for a given period - I think it's 4 years - but you don't volunteer for particular missions. For example if three years ago you signed up as a reserve, you can't unvolunteer to go fight in Iraq.)

There hasn't been a need for a draft in the U.S. for over 30 years at this point. The last time we had conscripted soldiers was during the Vietnam war. I believe the last year of the draft in the U.S. was 1974.

Sorry Morgoroth, but you have the US Military wrong. The US Military is divided in several groups -- ALL of which are volunteers. The US Military is an all volunteer force with NO conscripts serving at this time.

The different groups (not branches of service) are:

Active Duty -- these are the full time professionals.
Ready Reserve -- this is a combination of two groups. The Selected Reserve are the drilling reservists, they maintain the highest level of training for all reservists. Most Selected Reservists receive monthly pay at a fraction of their Active Duty counterparts. The Individual Ready Reserves are those former Active Duty and Selected Reservists who do not train regularly, they only receive pay while actively training. All reserve recalls have come from the Ready Reserve over the past 30 years.
Standby Reserve -- this is pretty much all US males. The US Military has not tapped this source since the Viet Nam War.
Retired Reserves -- these are individuals who have served time required to earn a retirement, but are not age 60 yet. They can be recalled just as the Ready Reserve can.

In all cases, the Ready Reserve and Retired Reserve are under contract which the individuals voluntarily signed. Many individuals go into the reserves thinking they will not be recalled. They sign the contract, take the pay, receive the training, and then do not want to fulfill their end of the contract -- they are not conscripted, those individuals are just being force to honor their contract (which they agreed to voluntarily a long time ago).

The National Guard falls into the Ready Reserve for the most part.

Aldeth beat me to the punch....

HB: Perhaps I'm not being clear. But then again, this is just a pipe dream that will never fly, but any number of occupations would count AS IS (such as fireman, forest ranger and police officer). Pretty much ANY civil servant job should count towards any conscription requirements -- they are all necessary jobs that help build the community at large.

I would envision a well run conscription organization as more a training center. It would give training to those who would not normally receive such opportunities and place those with training in positions where their professional skills could be used. For those who wish 'part time' work could have a regular job while helping on weekends for a period of time. In this example, everyone is required to do some service, but the individual would choose from a large list rather than just Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

[ December 19, 2006, 20:03: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

Ah ok seems like I had bit of inaccurate picture about the US military. Thanks for clearing it up. :thumb:

EDIT: One question though. Are there other than active duty troops involved in Iraq?

EDIT2: Oh never mind, I pretty much got the picture when reading the later part of T2Brunos post more accurately.

First of all the government pays your rent so that's not a problem and you recieve that which someone who is unemployed would recieve as daily support which in this country is more than enough to support your life and none of this goes to rent, so financially you're not much worse off than those doing the military service if not even better off. Also you're previous employer has no right to cut your contract so after the civil-service the work would go on as usual.Actually, the government does NOT pay the rent. The civil-service place is responsible of your housing. But you have to pay it yourself if you refuse to take the hole they assign to you. And all do not even bother to pretend like they would want to offer you an apartment. Result: you have to pay the rent yourself, while working for no salary. So, in the worst case scenario, you either have to take out a hefty loan and/or a second job to be able to participate to civil-service.

The daily support, or the money intended for your living expenses, is 9 euros if the employer does not offer warm meals. But if he does, it is mere 2 euros per day. That's about the same what the people in Africa earn.

Ironically, this is potentially still better what we students get. We have to live with approx. 4 euros per day until we graduate. Just hope that the employer takes into liking me, or else...

First of all the government pays your rent So, therefore, my tax dollars are going to pay for all these conscripted people being forced to become soldiers against their will. Yet another reason to be against this idea. I'd much rather the money was spent on health and education.

Where else did you assume the money came from? Out of a magical hat? In any case in New Zealand I'm sure conscription does not make sense but it's a bit different here being neighbour to Russia.

@Wirhe

Did not know about them not paying the rent. I think they obviously should do that. The financial situation is pretty much the same for those in military service too. I did loose money during the service time and I was not exactly spending tons of money during the service time either.

EDIT: One question though. Are there other than active duty troops involved in Iraq?Both Guard and Reserve units have been deployed to Iraq over the past few years. Am not certain whether any are currently deployed there.

@Harbourboy
That does'nt matter for your tax money. Food and housing is a very small part of a countrys military budget. In Sweden the military budget is actually bigger now than when we had "real conscription". This year 5000 out of 21000 service capable do military service. (civil service is very rare since you can be classed mentally incapable by saying you don't want to do it) When we had "real conscription" about 20000-30000 did military service.
It's the material that cost money. Eg. my panzer terrain car costs about 2,5 million dollars. A tire costs about $5000. Some guys I know trained shooting missiles worth $10000 each. It's the material that costs not the soldiers. By cutting down the manpower by half you'll not get a dime for health and education.

It's the material that costs not the soldiers.Ah, but we don’t have any hardware in the New Zealand army. There’s no way we have any ‘panzer terrain cars’ and I’d be very surprised if we have any missiles.

Actually the New Zealand has armoured vehicles. I found the statement a bit odd and searched Wikipedia and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZLAV

To make myself clear the missiles where anti-tank. Which New Zealand has. NZ uses the FGM-148 Javelin from Lockheed Martin.
The NZLAV looks about the same as the Sisu but they have different uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XA-203
By the way I drive the XA-202 Command PASI. It's going to be in the next Battlefield game and the one in the game is modeled after mine.

I find it kinda silly that a simple tire can cost 5,000 bucks. Almost as silly as labeling a standard needle "first-aid needle" and multiplying the price by 100. It's a rip-off in both cases and the so-called experts swallow it whole.

@Morgoroth:

I never actually bought this theory about military service being slavery. It's something done for the common good and protection against hostile intrusions, not to profit anyone. I believe in Denmark you also have mandatory education, is this too slavery? The child nor his/hers parents have any right to decide otherwise. The child must go to school until he or she is seventeen years. I don't hear anyone calling that slavery.Anyone who works while others enjoy the fruits of his or her labor is de facto a slave. I believe the common good consists in letting people do their own thing as long as they don't hurt others, not in using them as tools for one's own purposes. Collectivism (and forcing people to "serve their country" is a prime example of collectivism) is always justified by the Common Good - and look what collectivism did to us in the 20th century.

Military service and schooling are not exactly the same thing - but yes, I believe school attendance should not be mandatory - making it voluntary would do wonders for the quality of schools that suddenly had to make themselves relevant and attractive to kids! That, however, should be relegated to another thread.

@T2Bruno:

Service is not slavery. It is fulfilling a debt.To whom and for what? Surely if you have voluntarily accumulated a debt, you should pay it out of your own pocket. But what did your country do for you - at your request - that allows it to demand that you spend four, six or twelve months in what politicians are pleased to call "service"?

If you are paying off a debt that has been forced on you, we are de facto talking about slavery - though we may use a politer term such as "indentured servitude" or maybe "protection racket".

I did not limit community service to military service. And I have not said you are letting your family down. However, those who are not involved in helping their community (city, providence/state, national) ARE letting down those around them -- and it may very well affect their family.Is there any particular reason that the city, province, state or country cannot help itself without conscripting your help? What gives them the right to your time, your work, and in the extreme case your life?

Your life and your time is yours to give or sell, not theirs to demand!

Anyone who works while others enjoy the fruits of his or her labor is de facto a slave. Indeed I can agree with that. Let's see however who profits from military service? Yes the community, which you are efficently part of and therefore you profit from it too and it can't possibly be slavery under your own definition.

To whom and for what? Surely if you have voluntarily accumulated a debt, you should pay it out of your own pocket. But what did your country do for you - at your request - that allows it to demand that you spend four, six or twelve months in what politicians are pleased to call "service"? Unless you live in a libertarian "utopia" (which Denmark to all my knowledge is not) you have likely benefitted from social education, healthcare, and protection. Military service is a way of paying this back in addition to taxes. Unless you suggest that we give tax benefits to those who do their military service, then I'm all for that. In that case a voulentary military service would be even better so we could scrap the nearly useless civil-service.

Military service is a way of paying this back in addition to taxes. Unless you suggest that we give tax benefits to those who do their military service, then I'm all for that. 1. Why should I have to donate my time (in service) as well as my money (in taxes)? In effect, my tax money represents the time that I have laboured for at something I am good at it. Better to have me do what I am good at and use the resources I have gathered in doing that to allocate to the people who are good at playing soldiers.

2. Why should soldiers get tax benefits AND a salary? That just sounds like excessive administration.

I agree mostly with everything that Montresor said.

Conscripted "soldiers" get just enough to get by. They don't get any serious salary. Unless you consider under three euros a day to be a salary. As I said, I lost a hundered euros or so during service and I was not spending a lot. Most lost more money than me, a friend of mine lost 10 000 euros during the time of his service.

A professional army in a small country such as Finland would be impossible if it was supposed to defend the country. Unless you raise taxes significantly and recruit foreigners but I'm not comfortable with that option at all.

But it would also be horrendously expensive and detrimental to the economy to rob the workforce of a chunk of its ablebodied young workers just so they can march around and shoot guns. Especially in New Zealand where 75% of the 20 year old males are in London anyway. To conscript the remaining 25% would leave you with no young men doing any real work at all. Chaos!

I'm not saying that your country should go to conscription, I'm saying that it's the best option for this country. New Zeeland has a geographic position which makes attacks against it very unlikely unless there's a fascist coup in Australia or something similar but I really don't see that happening.

If you are paying off a debt that has been forced on you, we are de facto talking about slavery That's a good way of putting it. It is a 'debt' that has been forced upon you. Brings to mind that song...
"You load sixteen tons, what do ya get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"

Especially in New Zealand where 75% of the 20 year old males are in London anyway. I think I know what you mean, but if they are in London, they cannot simultaneously be in New Zealand.

That's exactly my point.

Military service is a way of paying this back in addition to taxes. Unless you suggest that we give tax benefits to those who do their military service, then I'm all for that. first off, what debt? what is it that conscripts owe society?

Secondly, how come over half the population dont owe this? Considering that its only able males, who pay this "debt" of yours

but seriusly define the so called debt, cause currently it stands out as a half assed excuse to keep this archaich form of military alive.

What's there to define? You've recieved free education, healthcare and protection from the government. In return you are expected to pay taxes when you find employment and do the military service. It can't possibly be considered slavery since you are yourself benefitting from this system that is there to protect your life and your possessions if and when a war breaks out.

Just to highlight this one, neat solution brought up:

However on that note the only time I can see conscription being justified is when the country is under direct threat. No conscription during the time of peace, conscription when the pot starts boiling. Adaptive and efficient, since war does not, by all likelihood, begin without clear warning. And this warning can be assessed by risk-analysis. Time, money, and work saved with a simple solution. :cool:

You've recieved free education, healthcare and protection from the government.Education is paid with your tax-money and so are healthcare and police. Everything government does is funded by the people and for the people. When you have paid your taxes, you "owe" nothing to the government.

Protection comes in many forms not just police. And one of those forms is to have an army to defend you and your property against an outside invasion. This army requires manpower and you are indebted to give the community that manpower.

No conscription during the time of peace, conscription when the pot starts boiling. Adaptive and efficient, since war does not, by all likelihood, begin without clear warning. And this warning can be assessed by risk-analysis. Time, money, and work saved with a simple solution. Well no. The routine is lost after you stop conscripting and will take years to return. Emergency conscription won't work because there are not enough trainers for it to take an short enough time for the country to be able to defend itself. Atleast our official defense policy has counted that there is an approximate time from two to five years to prepare for war. This will not be enough time to get the population properly trained. Also when the enemy who is working up against you notices the start of conscription they will no doubt attack you sooner. Conscripting "at times of risks" might very well be as good as not conscripting at all.

This army requires manpower and you are indebted to give the community that manpower. The community requires food as well. Am I also indebted to have a farm in my backyard and grow potatoes to give to the community for free?

If your country has a shortage of food then maybe but otherwise I don't see the point.

Emergency conscription won't work because there are not enough trainers for it to take an short enough time for the country to be able to defend itself. Atleast our official defense policy has counted that there is an approximate time from two to five years to prepare for war.That is unproven and we know very well who created that report. Tip: the same one which strongly supports conscription.

It is just a matter of how the training is done. It is possible that there aren't enough trainers at first, but their number will increase exponentially after each training-course completed: trainees can become trainers themselves. In this fashion, it isn't hard to imagine that a year or two would be enough to prepare and that is well enough.

After all, risk-analysis should take into account the short- and long-term risks. It would be a simple matter of setting the warning time to two years or more.

That is unproven and we know very well who created that report. Tip: the same one which strongly supports conscription. I'm sorry but there is not a more reliable source or one capable of defining the defensive doctrine than the ministery of defence. I'm going to trust their words over yours (which have no basis in any research) on this one.

If your country has a shortage of food then maybe but otherwise I don't see the point. So whatever your country has a shortage of, people should be conscripted into providing? If there is a shortage of accountants, we should conscript people into being accountants? If there is a shortage of teachers, we should conscript people into schools? Is that the underlying principle that you are applying to Finland's military resources?

No unless it threatens the very existance of your country or there are more sensible, cheaper and more efficent methods of doing it. Such as rising the teahcers salary and making it more efficent. Your examples are not very similar since they can all be dealt with more efficently with other means whereas with the military it is difficult to even manage with other means. Conscripton is really the only way to go for a small country such as this for now. If there's ever a common defense within EU then things might change but wartime conscription will probably allways stay and I'd be very surprised if New Zealand did not have laws for wartime conscription, nearly all countries in the world do.

Well according in Wikipedia (which may not be completely authoritative, but seems consistent with my experience), all forms of conscription were abolished in New Zealand from 1972.

Oh, I'm sure it does. There's also an outdated law about hanging anyone convicted for treason. I doubt very much if any government would survive past supporting the use of either law.

Do you really feel your country is threatened? Do you have the feeling that if your countries defences slipped for a moment, you'd have armed foriegn troops marching through your door? You claim that the 'oh, we can't win, what's the point in fighting' is an unhealthy attitude. I would honestly look at it the other way and say this blood thirsty, battle orientated view is much more unhealthy.

Yes, I agree that it seems much more sensible to focus a nation's resources on more important things like making food, having a good health system, teaching kids stuff, having a good electricity system, producing good export goods. But then again, I have never lived in a country that feels "threatened" by its neighbours so I might have a different view if I lived somewhere else.

Do you really feel your country is threatened? Do you have the feeling that if your countries defences slipped for a moment, you'd have armed foriegn troops marching through your door? You claim that the 'oh, we can't win, what's the point in fighting' is an unhealthy attitude. I would honestly look at it the other way and say this blood thirsty, battle orientated view is much more unhealthy. No, no and no. I'm not sitting in my room with a gun in my hand being paranoid about an enemy which do not exist. As I've said multiple times the future though is uncertain and it's good to be prepared for the worst. This is not a bloodthirsty or battle oriented view and I take some offense in that claim. Self defence is not battleoriented nor is it bloodthirsty, it's just something which is necessary for individual survival and surivival as a nation. If survival is not important to you then fine lie down and die but I'll fight for my life if it's threatend.

Yes, I agree that it seems much more sensible to focus a nation's resources on more important things like making food, having a good health system, teaching kids stuff, having a good electricity system, producing good export goods. I agree, but we don't really focus the nation's resources on the military. A very low percentage of our gross nationa production goes to the military. However defense is something that I feel is necessary, our geopolitical situation (which even Wirhe who opposes the current form of conscription agreed upon!) does not really allow us to put down the entire army. I mean do you feel it would be reasonable for say Israel or South Korea to stop conscription? Both being nations surrounded by enemies seeking to destroy them. The only thing that keeps them safe is a proper defense. Otherwise they would have been overrun allready. Finland is not in quite so dire situation but do any of you really think that Russia is stable enough to be trusted never again to turn aggressive? I certianly don't think so.

What's there to define? You've recieved free education, healthcare and protection from the government. In return you are expected to pay taxes when you find employment and do the military service. It can't possibly be considered slavery since you are yourself benefitting from this system that is there to protect your life and your possessions if and when a war breaks out. NO i havent recieved anything free, health system, school etc, is paid through taxes, which is why i also have to pay taxes.

secondly you ignored the second part, why is it only a procentage of healthy males that has to pay this debt.
you still havent got any forfilling answer to this.

i dont benifit from the conscripts, if anything, its waste of my tax-money. every time we have a crisis that needs military assistance, its the profesionels and voulenteers that sort it, not conscripted. in fact, we havent used conscripts for anything the last 100years (we where neutral in world war 1 and occiepied in world war 2) its a complete waste for society.

i dont benifit from the conscripts, if anything, its waste of my tax-money. every time we have a crisis that needs military assistance, its the profesionels and voulenteers that sort it, not conscripted. in fact, we havent used conscripts for anything the last 100years (we where neutral in world war 1 and occiepied in world war 2) its a complete waste for society. If you think it's a waste then fine, vote for a candidate who agrees with you. In Finland the support for conscription is nearly 80% so it has the popular support so the people of Finland clearly do not see it as a waste of society and neither do I. It's a long term investment in security against outside threats. Conscirption may have very well been one of the major factors that kept a soviet backed coup from breaking out in this country in the 50'ies. Not to mention that Finland would not have survived WWII without it. This is of course the past but it's good for a country and its population to be prepared for the worst.

NO i havent recieved anything free, health system, school etc, is paid through taxes, which is why i also have to pay taxes. That is true, but as I said earlier there are many sorts of protection and one of it is against outside threats and for that protection to be effective it needs enough manpower only available through conscription.

secondly you ignored the second part, why is it only a procentage of healthy males that has to pay this debt.
you still havent got any forfilling answer to this. You haven't got an answer to this because I really do not know what you're aiming for. 100% of healthy males have to go through this with the exception of the religious group I mentioned earlier. They are a very small percentage of the population but still I feel that their ethics are not above anybody elses so they should serve just like anyone else. Does that answer the question?

I'm sorry but there is not a more reliable source or one capable of defining the defensive doctrine than the ministery of defence. I'm going to trust their words over yours (which have no basis in any research) on this one.Of course you do. Both military and you support conscription, so it's natural you want to believe their word instead of all the people here, on SP.

In Finland the support for conscription is nearly 80% so it has the popular supportSource? And if so, you have to wonder why it is so extreme. Would it still be so high if military-service was made voluntary and military had only the regular ways, such as TV-advertising, to influence the young men? Besides, if 80% support conscription, then they are, quite likely, willing to serve in military voluntarily. No need to start pushing the remaining 20% to the same place with a gun-barrel against their skull.

Of course you do. Both military and you support conscription, so it's natural you want to believe their word instead of all the people here, on SP. I really do not take kind to that patronizing tone you got there. Others than me here support full conscription and you are really the only one who brought up emergency conscription so you really can't call upon them for backup in this case. Emergency conscription would either mean a professional army large enough to take care of conscription (according to the ministery of defence a more expensive option) or partial conscription in which you conscript only about a half of the healthy males (which is what Sweden does). However I do not think that it's very fair to have any sort of "lottery" about who gets conscripted and who does not. The current form of conscription is much better since atleast everyone knows ahead what awaits them.

Source? And if so, you have to wonder why it is so extreme. Would it still be so high if military-service was made voluntary and military had only the regular ways, such as TV-advertising, to influence the young men? Besides, if 80% support conscription, then they are, quite likely, willing to serve in military voluntarily. No need to start pushing the remaining 20% to the same place with a gun-barrel against their skull. The source is YLE news for a few months ago, I don't have a link since I saw it in TV. The problem of course being that the 80% probably would not be willing to put their lives at risk for the 20% who simply do not want to do so. I would not be willing to risk my life for you simply because you were too lazy to do military service or so uncaring for the community that you did not see defending it worth the while. Also the 80% probably would not enlist themselves to a voulenteer army since as I said earlier most people would not bother with the military just because the adjustments it would require.

EDIT: http://www.defmin.fi/index.phtml?s=289&1952_m=1986

There's a speech of Minister of Defence Seppo Kääriäinen where he refers to this polling as well.

Wordplay: Please tell us what experience you have in training recruits and preparing them for conflict. I happen to have several years experience in this. And you are wrong -- sending someone to battle with minimal training is not adequate. You can look to history on that (Soviet Union defending Russia from the Germans -- over 20 million killed in that defense). An emergency force can do a lot of damage, but will take huge losses in the fight.

An army fighting on their home turf should inflict 3 or 4 to one casualties. The German army was inflicting 10:1 casualties in many phases of the campaign -- and the Germans had poor logistics for the invasion of Russia. I can't see ever wanting that kind of massacre in my own country.

Sure you can take any country bumpkin and teach them to shoot in an afternoon. But how to survive a war, how to execute an affective assault, and how to trust the people around you is something that takes a while. It is that trust and the training to execute precisely that makes a fighting force affective. And that takes months (if you wish to argue the timeframe, please tell us what experience/resource you are using for your timeframe).

Wordplay, you keep stubbornly defending a opinion whose roots are flawed. As the technology becomes more and more advanced in warfare, the time necessary to train individuals becomes greater and greater. Finland is somewhat close to the same size as Iraq -- how long did it take for the US to arrive in Bhagdad? Do you think an emergency force would be ready in that amount of time? Do you think the UN or NATO would be able to respond quickly enough to prevent it?

partial conscription in which you conscript only about a half of the healthy males (which is what Sweden does)It's a step to the right direction and we could begin from 75%. And the military would not lose anything, which it seems to hate, if everyone (including women) became responsible. This way the military would actually get twice as many recruits while the conscription could be partially removed. A good compromise, for starters.

Sure you can take any country bumpkin and teach them to shoot in an afternoon.I was referring to the timeframe of 6 months, which is the shortest conscription time in Finland. In comparison, civil-service lasts more than twice as long.

I would not be willing to risk my life for you simply because you were too lazy to do military service or so uncaring for the community that you did not see defending it worth the while.So you are saying that those who do not take their military-service are "unpatriotic" traitors not willing, or unable, to help their comrades in need? I.e: cannonfodder?

Also the 80% probably would not enlist themselves to a voulenteer army since as I said earlier most people would not bother with the military just because the adjustments it would require.Adjustments such as...?

how long did it take for the US to arrive in Bhagdad? Do you think an emergency force would be ready in that amount of time?And is the war still going on or not? It has been three or four years, plus the time US spend pointing finger towards Saddam. If nothing, the Iraqian resistance will get even more organized and hence the losses of the invader will increase.

Do you think the UN or NATO would be able to respond quickly enough to prevent it? Don't know. Wouldn't trust either of them, so that's why EU's own defence-forces would be good to have, like I have said previously. I would prefer to have partial conscription in each EU country (say: 20%), which would be little from everyone, but a whole lot when it all sums up. Enough to buy time and adapt if some odd, totally unexpected war suddenly leaped to attack EU.

[ December 22, 2006, 22:42: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

Adjustments such as...? Getting used to limited freedom, military discipline, spending nights in the wood, crappy food, physically tougher life, not getting enough sleep, financial adjustments, social adjustments and so on. I could probably go on but these were the ones I quickly came up with and are enough for most.

So you are saying that those who do not take their military-service are "unpatriotic" traitors not willing, or unable, to help their comrades in need? I.e: cannonfodder? This is what we're headed towards. They recruit less and less those who are in medical class B and give them C or D papers instead. Soon they will probably stop recruiting B men entirely. Which I think is quite a good solution since I found them quite frankly useless during my time in the army. Most of them had duties which really had no sort of educational purpose, such as warehouse duties.

So you are saying that those who do not take their military-service are "unpatriotic" traitors not willing, or unable, to help their comrades in need? I.e: cannonfodder? No. What I'm simply saying (and which is completely true) that they apparently lack the will to defend their country so they should not expect anyone to defend them either when times of toruble come. I do not support usage of cannon fodder in any cases since it's simply demoralizing and useless. As for what the position of these people should be in war, I guess they should be trained as well as possible when the conflict arrives. They could also be assigned for weaponfree duties such as medics or somesuch if they have trouble with guns and killing.

What I'm simply saying (and which is completely true) that they apparently lack the will to defend their country so they should not expect anyone to defend them either when times of toruble come.And most people lack the will to grow their own food, farm their own meat and make their own clothes. Should we expect them to and farmers refuse to do so? From where I am standing, this is exactly the same.

Don't know. Wouldn't trust either of them, so that's why EU's own defence-forces would be good to have, like I have said previously. I would prefer to have partial conscription in each EU country (say: 20%), which would be little from everyone, but a whole lot when it all sums up. Enough to buy time and adapt if some odd, totally unexpected war suddenly leaped to attack EU.In this case, the collective defence should be enough without need for conscription - which is exactly the way people should be thinking. You get the professional section of the army from even half the EU countries and, if they are trained together, I am sure you will have a very able force which could hold out these invaders that seem to threaten you.

And most people lack the will to grow their own food, farm their own meat and make their own clothes. Should we expect them to and farmers refuse to do so? It would be so if farmers were conscripted to farming but they're not, it's a profession. Whereas military service in this country is not. I'm sorry but your comparison is horribly flawed and not in anyway similar.

Getting used to limited freedom, military discipline, spending nights in the wood, crappy food, physically tougher life, not getting enough sleep, financial adjustments, social adjustments and so on. I could probably go on but these were the ones I quickly came up with and are enough for most.It's good to see that you admit how much military demands from conscripts. Otherwise you might have tried to deny the effect it has on the people's lifes (although I wouldn't say the food is crappy). But doesn't it seem unjustified, with the previous in mind, to demand every male to participate when there is no immediate danger in near- or long-scope? With whole age-groups forced to serve in military, it has to hurt the economy, competitiveness, and personal careers quite a lot.

By the way, Morgoroth, I can read from between the lines that you agree about civil-servants and others being cannonfodder and trash. If most soldiers think this way, I wouldn't be surprised if the protection they give during war-time would be rather "selective." I.e: protect only those seen valuable and let the rest die. It's a very dangerous attitude.

Anyway, I believe the possible solutions to the problem have already come up: collective defence, partial conscription, and equality between civil- and military-service. Hopefully Finland begins to take steps towards these in the near future, even though I'm sure the conservative forces will be strongly against all iniatives that would threaten their power in the matter. It's like popping open a well shaken can of soda when they start talking...

[ December 23, 2006, 17:14: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

By the way, Morgoroth, I can read from between the lines that you agree about civil-servants and others being cannonfodder and trash. Well in that case you are misreading what I say badly. I do not support the usage of cannonfodder in any circumstances. I do think we should strive putting those who do not like weapons to duties that do not require weapons, however I do have a problem who even in dire situations of national crisis are unwilling to contribute to the common cause. What should be done with these, I really do not know. Killing them is not really an option since I'm against the death penalty, I guess I'd have to vote for imprisonment since I simply do not know better options.

If most soldiers think this way, I wouldn't be surprised if the protection they give during war-time would be rather "selective." I.e: protect only those seen valuable and let the rest die. It's a very dangerous attitude. Yes but soldiers did not think that way in the past wars, so