Is A Conscripted Army Needed Given The Growing Security Threat From China, Russia, Iran & N Korea?

[I'm With Stupid]

The Ukranians are mainly conscripts as are the Russians, both the first and second world wars were fought with conscripts.

It's worth mentioning a couple of things here. Firstly, there's a huge difference between conscripts literally defending their homeland, and conscripts being flown out to somewhere like Vietnam or Korea to fight some wider geopolitical battle. You may notice that Russia don't use conscripts any more, because it was politically threatening to Putin and they were widely considered to be shit (for obvious reasons). Meanwhile, it's much easier to get Ukrainians to fight, because there is a clear motive.

Secondly, while there are situations where you simply need a lot of bodies, I don't think anyone would argue that those conscripts in WW1 were used particularly effectively. Plenty of research shows that soldiers in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc, simply don't shoot to kill a lot of the time. And I don't mean covering fire or suppressing enemy positions, I mean when in a position to do so. They are heroes because they were put in a terrible position and did the best they could. It doesn't mean it's something that should be replicated from a military point of view.

You then have to also weigh it up against the effects of the military service and basic training itself. You're basically putting every 18-21 year-old in the country into a highly hierarchical scenario where the superiors have complete control over the recruits. And what happens in that situation in countries where they have it? People abuse that position, so you end up with hazing, assaults, suicides, sexual assault, not to mention the resulting psychological problems of some of the people who went through it. 60% of all deaths in the South Korean military each year are suicides. You see similar hazing controversies in the IDF. And when there's an existential threat to your country and way of life, you might deem it a price worth paying. As a routine way of life to keep the flag shaggers happy, I'd say not so much.

 

[mexico1970]

It's worth mentioning a couple of things here. Firstly, there's a huge difference between conscripts literally defending their homeland, and conscripts being flown out to somewhere like Vietnam or Korea to fight some wider geopolitical battle. You may notice that Russia don't use conscripts any more, because it was politically threatening to Putin and they were widely considered to be shit (for obvious reasons). Meanwhile, it's much easier to get Ukrainians to fight, because there is a clear motive.

Secondly, while there are situations where you simply need a lot of bodies, I don't think anyone would argue that those conscripts in WW1 were used particularly effectively. Plenty of research shows that soldiers in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc, simply don't shoot to kill a lot of the time. And I don't mean covering fire or suppressing enemy positions, I mean when in a position to do so. They are heroes because they were put in a terrible position and did the best they could. It doesn't mean it's something that should be replicated from a military point of view.

You then have to also weigh it up against the effects of the military service and basic training itself. You're basically putting every 18-21 year-old in the country into a highly hierarchical scenario where the superiors have complete control over the recruits. And what happens in that situation in countries where they have it? People abuse that position, so you end up with hazing, assaults, suicides, sexual assault, not to mention the resulting psychological problems of some of the people who went through it. 60% of all deaths in the South Korean military each year are suicides. You see similar hazing controversies in the IDF. And when there's an existential threat to your country and way of life, you might deem it a price worth paying. As a routine way of life to keep the flag shaggers happy, I'd say not so much.

But apart from that when a country mobilises they have a draft and use conscripts, this isn't an argument for or against this is a rational why conscripts are used.

Someone defending their country isn't a flag shagger are they? There wouldn't be conscription without the need of say some other country invading like say the 2nd world war?

Thank fuck we had flag shaggers then eh?

A quick check on South Korea gives me 2 deaths last year at boot camp, not exactly an epidemic is it?

 

[salfordbluetrue]

What are they going to do, catch the bomb? if we are going to conscript let it be the coast guard and immigration services, that is the war we are losing.

 

[mexico1970]

What are they going to do, catch the bomb? if we are going to conscript let it be the coast guard and immigration services, that is the war we are losing.

If there are no boots on the ground and you are just using drones and ordinance you can't hold a territory, all you're effectively doing is punishing a population.

Are the conscripts or the regulars the flag-shaggers is what I want to know?

 

[mexico1970]

What are they going to do, catch the bomb? if we are going to conscript let it be the coast guard and immigration services, that is the war we are losing.

Some obviously don't consider it a war they consider it a blessing.

 

[threespires]

There was a yougov poll earlier this year on 18-41 year olds attitudes towards conscription and 37% said they would refuse conscription vs 7% who would volunteer and 21% who said they would go reluctantly.

The numbers changed a bit when the question was changed to if the UK was under threat of imminent invasion, but not massively so.

They went back to ask why people would refuse and the single biggest answer was essentially "I'm not being cannonfodder for the rich and powerful". But there was all sorts of answers and beyond the more pacifist orientated ones the general theme could be translated as 'I don't feel any social contract with my country so why should I ?' this was seemingly from all ends of the political spectrum including the right. What was interesting was young working class white men who might normally be the conscriptors first target saying they felt as 'natives' that they'd been left behind so why should they fight?

We've had decades of politicians essentially telling people it's ok to care about themselves and their immediate families and screw everyone else, so I suppose people not feeling there's anything bigger to fight for is unsurprising.

Either way, mass conscription seems like the pipe dream of old men living in the past. People are more educated but more to the point we live in such a connected, information and misinformation rich world that any attempt would be chaotic and probably lead to large scale civil unrest. For example, when a proportion of the wealthy try and squirrel their young out of the country to avoid the draft they're not doing that under cover as they might have been able to decades ago.

Punishment for dissention will just lead to bigger problems than not having a bigger army. You could try incentives for being drafted, a sort of Stardship Trooper, 'service confers citizenship' model but that tells you everything about were we'd be. Ignoring the rights or wrongs of it, it just seems an utterly unrealistic prospect in 21st century Britain.

I suppose if you could put a clear compelling case for a just war you might get a better response but I'm not convinced of that even.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

But apart from that when a country mobilises they have a draft and use conscripts, this isn't an argument for or against this is a rational why conscripts are used.

Someone defending their country isn't a flag shagger are they? There wouldn't be conscription without the need of say some other country invading like say the 2nd world war?

Thank fuck we had flag shaggers then eh?

A few things. I'm answering the OP's question of whether conscription is currently necessary, not whether it may one day be necessary in some hypothetical situation.

And secondly, the flag shaggers aren't the ones who defended their country, they're the ones who piggyback on that sacrifice and tie their national pride to having powerful armed forces that conveniently they are too old to participate in. Your Nigel Farage's who constantly invoke national pride, but you know would be on the first plane out of here if it actually kicked off.

A quick check on South Korea gives me 2 deaths last year at boot camp, not exactly an epidemic is it?

Check again then. Maybe 2023 was a particularly good year, but 2022 had 66, and that seems about average over the past few years, but lower than with was 10-30 years ago. Stats. I'm not going to criticise them for it. They are clearly in a situation where it's necessary. We are not and are not likely to be any time soon with any of the enemies mentioned. Unless of course this isn't about defending the country, but about the sort of preemptive 'defensive' actions we've been so familiar with lately.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I suspect opinions will be split based on age here - as I'm 59 I'd say great idea, but full apreciate those that are younger to not be in favour ;-)

It'll be OK if they can take their Gameboys with them and also get a good wifi signal.
These kids are a different creature than their forefathers and won't be conned into all the bullshit, that is unless they are forced to. Plus if we fall out with China, we'll never get anything made.

 

[urban genie]

No it isn't and let us be honest none of those countries are going to invade us or are we likely to need to go to war with.

Bar russia none of those are even stategic dangers, and even then the likelihood or them going any futher west than Ukraine is very minimal.

China's only possible target cor any military action is Taiwwan and tbh it is none of our business as it is an unresolved civil war we have no reason to get tangled up in, Ditto North Korea, who in reality are all talk.

The only busy cunts wanting to stick their nose into Asias affairs are the septics and we should not be following them unecessarily, in fact they need to be told to stop fucking about mithering others.

 

[mexico1970]

A few things. I'm answering the OP's question of whether conscription is currently necessary, not whether it may one day be necessary in some hypothetical situation.

And secondly, the flag shaggers aren't the ones who defended their country, they're the ones who piggyback on that sacrifice and tie their national pride to having powerful armed forces that conveniently they are too old to participate in. Your Nigel Farage's who constantly invoke national pride, but you know would be on the first plane out of here if it actually kicked off.


Check again then. Maybe 2023 was a particularly good year, but 2022 had 66, and that seems about average over the past few years, but lower than with was 10-30 years ago. Stats. I'm not going to criticise them for it. They are clearly in a situation where it's necessary. We are not and are not likely to be any time soon with any of the enemies mentioned. Unless of course this isn't about defending the country, but about the sort of preemptive 'defensive' actions we've been so familiar with lately.

Weird how you didn't pull someone up for mentioning the home guard (Dads army) and your use of the term "Flag shaggers" isn't great considering the topic.

We have had national service in this country before and if we face attack from another country we will have it again, as for Korea they've a problem with K poppers killing themselves FFS.

Are you playing numbnuts bingo today or something?

:)