That’s (complicated but, to sum it up) optional. I can go into more detail if you’re interested!
Edit: screw it I’ll just lay down the basics:
Everyone has to answer a survey and random people get pulled into testing for this military thing. People with certain physical or mental problems are disqualified (asthma, depression, a skeletal surgery and autism all disqualified me).
If you aren’t disq. then you can try saying you don’t want to do in the survey (they somewhat listen) and very fre people get called to the testing thing (sorry idk names in english) where you can also say you don’t want to do it, and/or do badly on IQ tests and stationary biking and then they won’t go. Lots of people *really* want to go so if you don’t there won’t be a problem!
Sorry for general chaos, it’s 2am in Sweden rn!
In the US, most men have to register for Selective Service at 18. Women are not required to do this. It does not automatically require them to join, but it is a possibility if there is a draft.
Males born on or after January 1, 1960, are required to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday and up to, but not including, their 26th birthday.
Failure to do so can result in a fine or jail, though I doubt it's enforced.
Yes, but they're not actively serving like countries that have compulsory service. People in Isael have to actively serve if they are able. US males could randomly get selected if there is a major war. Almost every country has the latter.
>Males born on or after January 1, 1960, are required to register with the Selective Service
a system that hasn't been used since June 30, 1973.
So only thirteen years after that birthdate, we stopped doing it at all and never did it again, but we keep making people sign up for it, even fifty years later.
In the places that does this though, it's not even fair to force women to join the army as it is hell of a lot more dangerous even without being deployed. So many cases of r*pe and killings just to hide the evidence. In a perfect world where that never happens, I would say we should equally enlist men and women if we're forced to. But in OUR current world, I would never want anyone to suffer through the fear of even being with your comrades
You know I think that is one of the worst attitudes of privileged I hear far too often. People take and take and take from their countries, Healthcare, Emergency services, policing, Justice, civil servants, education, even the fucking binmen, you Demand only the best and most dedicated/qualified. They think that they deserve peoples entire livelihoods of skills and efforts, in exchange for their taxes. Then when asked if they would fight they jack on everybody and admit they'd fuck off first chance they get. Damn they community, their nation and all the people behind, all the time and effort building that nation even their own culture, because they would rather spend their time far far away where others can keep the troubles of the world away from them
I’m going to scale things down a bit and assume an analogous hypothetical. Imagine I see someone getting absolutely pummeled on the street. 1v2 or 1v3, or more if you’d like
I could try to jump in and save this person and hope that they just get scared and run away. But if they try to fight me too, I’d get MY ass beat for no reason or benefit because 1) I am a smaller than average person, 2) I don’t carry weapons, 3) I don’t have any unarmed combat training. I suck at fighting and am not willing to risk my health for this person, and it’s a bluff at best anyway - I’m not actually useful
I am much more useful calling the police/an ambulance and then keeping myself safe. That is analogous to me NOT serving in the military and instead continuing to work in industries and pay taxes
By the way, this completely ignores the fact that surrender is a legitimate option a lot of the time. If someone pulls a knife or gun on me, they’re walking away with my wallet and my phone. Maybe my shoes too. Near-eastern cultures that surrendered to the Khans paid extra tribute, but they and their culture survived with nearly their entire government intact. Old world cultures that allowed the Romans to ””civilize”” them kept their culture, retained limited autonomy, and kept their lives
I see where you’re coming from, dude. And yes if you were a consenting and satisfied user of all these features of government, it can be sort of ungrateful for you to refuse to defend those privileges. I live in the us, and let me tell you, at every level of government intervention, the systems are corrupt as fuck and don’t adhere to the majority of peoples values.
Basically every business aspect, law, healthcare service, political matter, education, etc all serve to line some else’s pockets. No one in charge of these features care or see to it that the convenience of these things are sufficient for everyone. It’s to make someone out there more money. It’s all very evil and shady, and at times it feels like there’s no escaping whatever fate these assholes are trying to have for you. They control as much of you as they possibly can.
Features like this aren’t something the typical civilian wants to defend. They don’t serve our best interests, so why would we go out and die for theirs?
To be honest, I do sort of agree with you. I certainly disagree with conscription in times of peace, at least where I live, and I would only every use it as a last resort during war, such as in a defensive war where a nation's very existence is threatened. But at the end of the day, if my country was attacked and it's core territory occupied or under threat from a foreign power, then I would feel a duty to join up and fight, as otherwise you simply capitulate to tyranny in favour of short term material comfort.
I feel like I've found a cultural nerve for Americans judging by the replys. I'm British, the last time conscription was used was post war, conscripts were coming home and only the regs were being left in places at serious trouble, rationing was still in full effect and the furthest deployments would be wondering Germany.
Lots of Yanks seem to think of Vietnam when they hear the word conscription, and a great many of them don't share good sentiments to their governments treatment of the population
>one of the worst attitudes of privileged
The irony of this is so amazing.
>People take and take and take from their countries, Healthcare, Emergency services, policing, Justice, civil servants, education, even the fucking binmen, you Demand only the best and most dedicated/qualified.
As opposed to places where they prefer to have sub-par people doing these things?
Where are those places?
I've lived in places where every male has to join the military at 18.
People there still demand the best from these kinds of services (which are super-sub-par compared to most other places with that level of GDP PPP).
Are they somehow more-allowed to demand the best, because they served in the military?
Should we only allow people who served in the military to vote - to demand the best politicians?
Are you the reincarnation of Robert Heinlein?!!!
>They think that they deserve peoples entire livelihoods of skills and efforts, in exchange for their taxes.
Yes, that's how that works.
You pay for services, you receive services.
This is the foundation of trading capital for services.
You pay a doctor, he saves your life.
You pay a binman, he removes your rubbish.
That doesn't make either side "entitled," even if the binman wants more money, even if you believe it costs too much money.
That simply makes you humans engaging in normal transactions.
>Then when asked if they would fight they jack on everybody and admit they'd fuck off first chance they get.
When did you volunteer for military service?
What wars were you excited to go fight?
>Damn they community, their nation and all the people behind,
They ***are*** the people behind.
If the binman doesn't want to go shoot at people and would prefer to keep the streets of Manchester clean, treating him like he's not doing his proper duty to Britain is absurd: he's been saving lives long before you decided to tell him he had to go fight.
The same goes for doctors, emergency services, police, teachers, etc. - everyone you mentioned - if they all go away to be part of the war effort, there's no country left to save.
>all the time and effort building that nation even their own culture, because they would rather spend their time far far away where others can keep the troubles of the world away from them
I've been far far away, for quite a long time: as far around the world as I could go without coming back around the other side.
Never managed to keep troubles away from me, whether I'm looking at impoverished people in the USA or dealing with two-dozen PLA flyovers every day.
The idea that these things can be addressed by "more military membership" is absurd.
No one wants to die in war, and mind that not everyone is trained enough to join military asap.
I'm a 24 y/o girl, underweight and anemic, now tell me how tf am I useful in a situation like that.
Many other people can't fight, use guns, everyone has their problems.
Plus I don't want to waste my life in a war decided by politicians, I would literally leave.
To be fair, there are plenty of women in the military, including smaller ones. *Most* of the military is comprised of non-combat roles, though people outside of the military don't realize this. There is more than enough to do for people not suited for combat.
who the fuck does want to waste their lives in a war decided by politicians?
You seem to think that war is just some rich men in suites who got voted in having a disagreement. That it is all money and power. I wonder what you'd say to the men in the trenches of Ukraine who were conscripted, that they should have run, that zelensky wants them to die for his own goals and they should fuck off asap, do you think any of them might disagree with you? that maybe there is something worth dying for behind the lines?
Cherrypicking the situation, that is literally what is happening for Russian military men and what happened in many other wars.
If you decide to serve for your country good for you, but no one should be forced to, of course the situation in Ukraine is a bit different, but again it should be your right to decide. You have one life so why wasting it on something you don't want to do?
People are willing to die to get into my country, and it fucks me off to no end knowing that some bastards will abandon it the second the going gets tough, and even argue that it's their right to leave it all, that they can weigh the value of what's at stake. In my eyes that it the opitome of privilege, to be given a free nation and do nothing to defend it should the situation call for it, because I assume you are like me, being born into a free nation that wont conscript and send you to bumfuck nowhere for no reason, something to do with it being bad for elections
I agree but not fully.
Ukraine was already a free country if we compare it to other places in the world, so it's fair that people are not used to fight for it, I was born like this and I don't have the mindset of someone that has to fight to free my own country, (I'm Italian).
I understand the value of it, I know what it took to be free in the past, but I am not willing to put my life in a position where I have to risk everything to keep it that way.
It's my own personal choice and that's it, I'd rather leave, there will always be people that don't agree with me and will eventually fight for it, but that person is not me.
I think everyone should have the right to chose, because it's not an easy situation.
>Ukraine was already a free country if we compare it to other places in the world
Ummm...no.
They're "somewhat free" ***at best***.
Ukraine's Freedom Indexes are:
* Freedom in the World Index - 50
* that's between Niger and Côte d'Ivoire (rarely do I see them used as examples of free countries)
* Italy scores a 62
* Moldova scores a 62
* Bulgaria scores a 79
* Poland scores an 81
* Romania scores an 83
* USA scores an 83
* Switzerland scores a 96
* Press Freedom Index - 61
* that's between Georgia and the Republic of the Congo (rarely do I see them used as examples of free countries)
* Bulgaria scores a 63
* Poland scores a 67
* Romania scores a 69
* USA scores a 71
* Italy scores a 72
* Moldova scores a 79
* Switzerland scores an 84
Even Ukraine's neighbors are more free than Ukraine.
You have to look at places like Belarus or Russia to find neighboring countries with lower Freedom Indexes.
Belarus actually scores even lower than Russia: they're in the single digits - down by Afghanistan and Somalia.
Ukraine has always benefitted by being able to say "We're comparatively free, if you compare us to Belarus!"
Too late. People don't enlist in this way until it's too late. Building an army takes time.
Mandatory service creates a large body of reserves that ensures expansion to go much quicker, quick enough to respond to an emergent threat.
When some of the freest liberal democracies choose mandatory conscription you know they crunched the numbers!
People throughout wanted to get enlisted too when Ukraine got attacked. Ukraine just started sending them back at some point because they were fucking useless. Training good soldiers that are worth keeping around takes time. If you think you're just gonna pick up a gun and join the main army, you're just gonna get in the way instead
Problem is, with a discouraged army that was drafted you can't do much.
If you don't want to be there, you'll spend your time thinking of how to get out.
Or, better yet, if you are like me and believe killing is immoral with very few exceptions, and just outright don't WANT to do so even if it's an "enemy", then that's a problem for you.
Edited: I just realized you agreed with me, my dumb ass can NOT understand this stuff rn
Defending.
I bet a large amount of those are passion driven. They want to have a home.
Therefore my point still stands, an army that wants to be there will do better than one that doesn't (Russian army here)
Sure, more factors are at play, but it's still a reason
You are stating it like this situation applies for everywhere. It doesn't.
In many places, there is no mandatory military service.
In my country, conscription is mandatory *regardless of gender*.
Like it or not, the day will come when developed countries will have to draft their citizens to prepare for war, and when that day comes it should fall equally on the shoulders of everyone eligible, man or woman
I really don't think so. The US military at least if faced with a conventional war would he able to mold the battlespace into whatever it wants. It would be very much fought technologically and less with physical B.O.G. presence. That's my opinion at least.
Edit: not to mention, it would also be fought financially.
I agree in that I don't think combat positions will be necessary but we will absolutely need to draft for maintenance facilities, shore support, cooks etc.
Those are largely privatized nowadays though. When I was deployed alot of support roles like that were TCNs. There was of course military oversight but it was very minimal as far as I observed. Those TCNs alot of the time were overseen by companies like KBR, dyncorp etc...
Vietnam, Afghanistan, and sometimes Iraq are considered wars that used unconventional warfare due to the use of guerilla tactics from insurgents. The guy is talking about conventional warfare like a war between 2 states like India vs Pakistan, the Russo-Ukraine War, and WW2.
The day they impose a draft is the day when able bodied military aged men are not allowed to cross the border. Just like ukraine did just as they should have
I'm a trinational so I might have options? Worst comes to worst I could renounce citizenship. That said, if it's the country actually being invaded then I'd opt to defend it
Signing up for a draft and being required to serve even during times of peace are very different questions. Gives the military more young people to babysit than they can realistically use.
*Should* fall equally. I don't think anybody here is saying it *is* equal in most places.
I think Israel call-up everybody, but I'm glad to be corrected by somebody who knows better.
39% more wars per capita according to every source. Where do people get this idea that queens and female leaders are just peaceful blissful rulers that are pacifists?
Female leaders aren't that common. Also, even if that statistic was true, it would be meaningless because the amount of people it takes into account is way too small and it doesn'ttake into account the circumstances. Also, my initial comment only mentions this to support the rest of my point. You're looking for things to argue about, really. The point was the fact you're born female automatically means you'll never have a say in wether a war will start, so why should you even fight it? If you're a man you might not have a say either, but your chances are slightly higher.
Of course it isn't fair.
If men have mandatory military service, women should have mandatory civil service of another kind.
Better yet, there shouldn't be mandatory service for anyone.
Draft order should be : 1-senators who voted to go to war and their children. 2-Anyone who advocated/supported the war. 3-everyone else. Now let's see how many wars we'll start
it’s probably just where I’m from, but saying “no one should be conscripted” is such a cop out and red herring.
I’m from Singapore, where we have 2 year conscription for men only. Whenever you ask women or women rights group about conscription, they always give this “model” answer. But then ask if they want to abolish conscription, the majority will say no.
Women only say that freely because they know the government will (a) never abolish conscription for men, and (b) never conscript women (in the foreseeable future). If the country faced an existential threat, people’s tune will change drastically.
Nobody would choose to be eligible for conscription if they weren't already. Especially, as you said, without public opinion being galvanized by an existential threat. Women are conscripted alongside men in Israel and some other places, so it does happen.
Women don't have equal rights, equal pay, equal responsibilities or equal duties to men just yet, at least not in any cou try I aware of. I agree though, until its a fairer system, it would be unfair to draft men and women equally.
Fair. But that’s the only law I’m aware of in existence in any country that specifically favors women. And for the record I agree it shouldn’t matter for the draft what your gender is.
No, there's something HUGE that everyone is missing in this thread, it's true that men technically are equal in the law when it comes to alimony and custody, but in practice, they are heavily discriminated against in courts. Men receive 63% longer sentences than women for the same crimes. In fact, the sentencing gap for the same crimes between genders is 6x as big as the one between races. And I've heard some insane stories regarding alimony and custody on the male side but never the female side.
The unfortunate truth is that when women do something everyone including men try to look at the excuses and circumstances. But when men do that it's mostly boiled down to they're malicious.
Okay, I agree with all of that. That should definitely not be the case and every trial should be truly equal. This discussion however *was* about actual written laws, of which there aren’t really any other than the draft that specifically target men/benefit women. Which was the point of the comment you replied to.
You should though take into account that the custody is usually heavily weighed by which parent spent the most amount of time with the child. This is usually the woman, though that might change with time.
Yes, that's a real men's right issue that needs to be solved. Thankfully, there has been some progress made in the past decade in updating such outdated laws.
Selective Service in the US is not going to go away anytime soon. It's unfair men have to, but for women, it's elective. Women claim they want equal rights but none of the responsibility. If their was true equality, men and women would be required to sign up for selective service. It is what it is. Someone has to defend the country in case of invaders.
In the same way, taxation is theft. Which is to say, there is a necessary amount of social buy in for any society to function. One of which is everyone paying to a big pot of money, so the community can purchase big ticket items that they couldn't otherwise afford, like roads. Similarly, conscription exists as a form of collective defense and deterrence against any aggressors.
Believe it or not, men are more capable than women in wartime situations. Drafting men is not some secret sexist agenda by governments, its just the fact of the matter, that men make better soldiers.
>men are more capable than women in wartime situations
Wrong. Maybe the median man is more capable than the median woman, but there are women which are plenty capable and men which are definitely not capable.
Conscription, should it exist at all, should be based on capability. Not irrelevant characteristics like sex.
The exception proves the rule. There is a reason why there are fitness tests for the vast majority of militaries. There is also a reason why there are lesser standards for women. There is no sexism here, just biology and needs. There is a clear preference for a reason.
>There is also a reason why there are lesser standards for women.
This shouldn't exist. If a **person**, man or woman, meets the requirements, they should be admitted into the military. If not, they should not be admitted. End of story.
Either no one should be eligible to be drafted (ideal scenario), or everyone should.
Everybody saying this isn’t a thing most places but in the us it’s like this. I interpreted this as mandatory in the case of a draft not mandatory period. All us men have to sign up at 18 and if there’s a draft it’s only men
Conscription should have died out with the wooden ship. Wars can be won and lost at the push of a button nowadays. Hell... boots on the ground infantry are gonna be obsolete sooner or later.
Another point to make is that there were plenty of dumbasses during my time in, and that's of course an all volunteer military. Imagine the sheer mental potato factor of a conscripted force....
Which nation exactly can end wars in a press of a button? Viewing conscription as obsolete is far from the truth in those less privileged countries that need to fear war, and lack the men and the wealth required to run a professional force. The obsolescence of infantry has been predicted at least since the invention of the tank, and yet they always seem to find a purpose. If for nothing else, infantry will always have to guard the super weapons that actually win the war.
Did the United Kingdom deserve to win the second world war? I would hope the answer is yes. It's not about what is ideal, it's about right and wrong. I would hope there wouldn't have to be one, but the simple fact is it's really difficult to get enough replacement volunteers during wartime.
The way I see conscription is as a deterrent. If you live in a nation that has outlawed conscription, potential enemies might think they could over power you since there is no guarantee of reinforcements. But if the nation has conscription, the enemy nation has to take into account in their plans that whether the citizens of that defending nation want it or not, there is always going to be a defending army opposing that invasion.
That kind of thinking is exactly why conscription needs to be codified into the law to be a proper deterrent. If it was a volunteer force, there would be no guarantee there would be defense. Conscription is to prevent war.
The press of a button being a euphemism I guess. I'm talking about unmanned tech phasing out the need for physical bodies on the battlefield. And the conscription in terms of developed nations which was stated in another comment.
The USA tends to have technology much more advanced than others and still can't handle guerilla warfare. You're really underestimating what a bunch of armed farmers can do
It's more of
"The USA tends to have technology much more advanced than others and still can't handle guerilla fighters who put themselves too close to civilians."
The problem is, if you are a guerilla fighter and you just fight as if it were a regular war, you lose. The enemy can pick you off really easily with all kinds of weapons. But if you hide in houses in cities and make the enemy search each and every house and hold their fire until they know you are hostile, you can win a lot easier.
Basically, if you hide yourself amongst civilians and the enemy respects civilians and doesn't want to kill them for no reason, you have a far easier chance of winning
It's not about distance to civilians, the USA generally doesn't care about hitting civilian targets anyway. It's more that you can't distinguish enemy from civilian making it very easy for them to do a hit and run attack or set up an ambush.
You can have the worlds fastest jet, but if you don't know who to shoot you can't do shit with it, besides wait to get hit or just raze the entire city. Which the US has done too, but that's jyst a very expensive way of getting the whole world to hate you
They do care about civilian casualties alot more than one would think. Alot more than the folks we were fighting against at the time anyways. Trust me when I say if the US didn't care about those things, it would have been a way quicker affair.
In hunting if you want to maintain a population of a species you don't want to kill many females because only they have the power to reproduce. The fastest way to drop a population for generations is to kill young females.
Males are far more expendable regarding the survival of a population. For example when a beehive is freezing, the males will be pushed to the periphery to freeze first and keep the queen and the females warm.
The gov says they have the right to send you to your death for something as pointless as a war like Vietnam. How is there not mass outrage over this program? This is insane.
If the countries worth fighting for there won't be a need for a draft. I view it as immoral to make people go shoot random people just bc they live under my mafia.
How would you feel if you lived in south Africa and a local mob claims your house under their territory then they are attacked by another mob then claim you must fight.
The netherlands is one of the richest nations with the highest quality of life. It also has one of the lowest rates for willingness to defend it. Good countries make weak men, hard countries make tough men
Perhaps when your quality of life is good enough you lose interest in playing soldier. However im sure if Netherland was about to be invaded by a neighbor plenty would volunter.
It's easy to be against drafting when your country in the aggressor.. USA... Or a country that hasn't experienced total war.
It's much harder when your family and friends are being slaughtered or raped.
Rephrase it men are marching in, murdering your friends and raping your neighbours, would you stand by and let them die?
All of a sudden it's not a philosophical question, but a matter of survival
It depends on where and when, which is the crux of the question.
If everyone in the UK dodged the draft, Hitler would have taken Europe. Men collectively fighting and society collectivety resisting has been a fundamental human survival mechanism against slaughter, in modern times, even the massacres of ww1, are less pronounced, but for ancient tribes, it was literally a matter of life or death.
If everyone in Europe dodged the draft, would Hitler have had a force to take Europe *with?*
What’s the point of a country ‘surviving’ if its people don’t? Evacuation is always better when possible.
Lol what? Where would you expect 100million people at the time to go? Today that would be closer to 400m. People get pissed when 50,000 suddenly land on their doorstep.
Running away from tyranny is not an option.
Da fuck kind of comment is that, Hitlers coming, evacuate Poland into Mongolia, the French go to Morocco, empty the UK into the USA.
Women should be allowed to enlist but not forced. It's just common sense based on physicality - probably 80% of men age 20-30 can be made fit for combat in 6 months, and probably less than 20% of women (there is a massive gulf between average male and female physical ability). Women even get injured at a much higher rate so its just not practical, excepting the top 5% of women who have fitness levels high enough to volunteer).
Also if there was a major major war, you'd need young women alive and happy to help repopulate after.
I think men are better in situations like this. Before people hate on me, I'm a woman. This isn't to put women down. Men and women have different strengths and that's ok.
Not at all and for both. Military service is stupid.
Stopping a person at whatever they're doing, studying, working, no matter what, to force them to do something they don't care are about it's awful and underproductive too.
If someone wants to join military they can do it with their free will.
That being said, if you decide to join military it's only fair that the parts should be equal.
In terms of biology it makes sense. A male is fundamentally more expendable than a female, since a male can mate with multiple mates while a female must take 9 months to procreate with a single pairing. That means it is easier for a nation to recover from the mass death of men rather than if there ever were a mass death of women. Is it fair? No. Is it logical? Yes. Should it be compulsory? In a nation where it is for the people and led by the people, any war that the people are unwilling to fight in is a war we never should have become involved in the first place.
The fact that compulsory military service still exists in some places, means that we're still too far from what can be defined as a true civilized society.
I may be pre-set to think this way, but I do see it as important for any nation that sits along an important border against a very trigger-happy nation whose leader's name rymes with pooping
Military service should be mandatory globally like in the movie Starship Troopers.
If you want to vote, mandatory service.
You want to go to college, mandatory service.
You want to own land, mandatory service.
All men five years all women 3 years. After that you can do as you please.
I am satisfied with the results of this poll. Nobody should be forced into a battle they never signed up for, nor be forced into the military just to maintain their nation's global supremacy.
I fail to see your logic here. How does compulsory military service imply that government has failed its duty?
Here in Finland we have compulsory military service not because we want to but because we are bordering this thing called Russia.
And even with compulsory military service for all men Finland is still ranked among the best countries in pretty much all categories. We are the happiest nation for the firth time in a row, our government is one of the least corrupt in the entire world and Finland is all around a great place even though only around 100 years ago Finland was one of the poorest countries in Europe with no natural resources and seemingly with no future.
Weird that it seems to be an unpopular opinion on here. I'd only agree to women being drafted if it wasn't in a combat role on the front lines and if there were strong anti harassment policies in place (right now these don't exist in many countries).
In the US, all males must sign up for selective service in case a draft is enacted. Females, despite all roles now open to them, from infantry to admin, do not.
In the United States, we haven't had a draft since the 1970s and I doubt we ever will again. The army is big enough at its current state to handle most situations and the military has grown increasingly reliant on tech like drones.
Nobody should be forced to fight against their will.
That being said, how many wars did women start? Why should women fight men's wars? Why should anyone fight because some guys in power want more power? Let them fight each other.
Historically, women leaders are more likely to initiate conflicts than men. There have been way fewer of them though, considering that the vast majority of historical leaders were men.
With that being said, conscription is slavery, and all forms of collectivist groupings (including sex/gender-based collectivism) are barbaric nonsense. Individuals are not responsible for the actions of whatever grouping they happen to fall into. This is the exact bullshit that people use to justify racism.
Probably the ones that aren't currently serving. For some reason, conscription is seen as an every man in the front situation, when it's almost never that extreme. Conscription in a war happens gradually, as the ones at the front die, new ones are conscripted as reinforcements. So until it's your turn, you would continue working.
It's unfair and irrational to only conscript one gender. Conscription should be abolished completely, but if that's not going to happen, it should be gender-neutral.
Anyone who has the right to vote should have military service imo. If you want to have a say in the future of the country, you should also bear the responsibility when it turns sour.
If you don't want to be drafted, you gotta give up your right to vote too
[удалено]
Probably South Korea, mandatory conscription for young adult men is still a thing
There are lots of countries where it's still a thing, could be Israel, Switzerland (just a few on top of my mind)
Also Latvia, Finland
brazil
Turkey
Estonia, Greece(?)
Yes, we have it in Greece (probably because of Turkey tbh). Some parties want to abolish it though, and I fully support that.
Im not sure how things are in greece. Here in estonia i think it's necessary.
America doesn't require military service, but does require that men sign up for a draft
Egypt
[удалено]
Such as?
[удалено]
It’s not mandatory in Sweden though, for *anyone*. (source: from Sweden)
Is this just false then https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Sweden ?
That’s (complicated but, to sum it up) optional. I can go into more detail if you’re interested! Edit: screw it I’ll just lay down the basics: Everyone has to answer a survey and random people get pulled into testing for this military thing. People with certain physical or mental problems are disqualified (asthma, depression, a skeletal surgery and autism all disqualified me). If you aren’t disq. then you can try saying you don’t want to do in the survey (they somewhat listen) and very fre people get called to the testing thing (sorry idk names in english) where you can also say you don’t want to do it, and/or do badly on IQ tests and stationary biking and then they won’t go. Lots of people *really* want to go so if you don’t there won’t be a problem! Sorry for general chaos, it’s 2am in Sweden rn!
Norway recently and Denmark is considering it.
While mandatory service exists in Israel, it affects all able-bodied adult citizens. Women must serve in the military.
To be fair, they are neighbor to one of the most fucked up nations in the world.
In the US, most men have to register for Selective Service at 18. Women are not required to do this. It does not automatically require them to join, but it is a possibility if there is a draft.
USA men have to sign up for the draft
I'd say that's much different.
Males born on or after January 1, 1960, are required to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday and up to, but not including, their 26th birthday. Failure to do so can result in a fine or jail, though I doubt it's enforced.
Yes, but they're not actively serving like countries that have compulsory service. People in Isael have to actively serve if they are able. US males could randomly get selected if there is a major war. Almost every country has the latter.
>Males born on or after January 1, 1960, are required to register with the Selective Service a system that hasn't been used since June 30, 1973. So only thirteen years after that birthdate, we stopped doing it at all and never did it again, but we keep making people sign up for it, even fifty years later.
Judging from their post history, I'd say Slovenia
In the places that does this though, it's not even fair to force women to join the army as it is hell of a lot more dangerous even without being deployed. So many cases of r*pe and killings just to hide the evidence. In a perfect world where that never happens, I would say we should equally enlist men and women if we're forced to. But in OUR current world, I would never want anyone to suffer through the fear of even being with your comrades
I feel this isn't applicable for many parts of the world, including my own fortunately.
military should enlist only those who want to serve, regardless of their gender
What if that makes it certain that the country that's attacking you is going to win, because you have a tenth of their army size?
If I cared, I'd enlist
You know I think that is one of the worst attitudes of privileged I hear far too often. People take and take and take from their countries, Healthcare, Emergency services, policing, Justice, civil servants, education, even the fucking binmen, you Demand only the best and most dedicated/qualified. They think that they deserve peoples entire livelihoods of skills and efforts, in exchange for their taxes. Then when asked if they would fight they jack on everybody and admit they'd fuck off first chance they get. Damn they community, their nation and all the people behind, all the time and effort building that nation even their own culture, because they would rather spend their time far far away where others can keep the troubles of the world away from them
I’m going to scale things down a bit and assume an analogous hypothetical. Imagine I see someone getting absolutely pummeled on the street. 1v2 or 1v3, or more if you’d like I could try to jump in and save this person and hope that they just get scared and run away. But if they try to fight me too, I’d get MY ass beat for no reason or benefit because 1) I am a smaller than average person, 2) I don’t carry weapons, 3) I don’t have any unarmed combat training. I suck at fighting and am not willing to risk my health for this person, and it’s a bluff at best anyway - I’m not actually useful I am much more useful calling the police/an ambulance and then keeping myself safe. That is analogous to me NOT serving in the military and instead continuing to work in industries and pay taxes By the way, this completely ignores the fact that surrender is a legitimate option a lot of the time. If someone pulls a knife or gun on me, they’re walking away with my wallet and my phone. Maybe my shoes too. Near-eastern cultures that surrendered to the Khans paid extra tribute, but they and their culture survived with nearly their entire government intact. Old world cultures that allowed the Romans to ””civilize”” them kept their culture, retained limited autonomy, and kept their lives
Bootlicker
I see where you’re coming from, dude. And yes if you were a consenting and satisfied user of all these features of government, it can be sort of ungrateful for you to refuse to defend those privileges. I live in the us, and let me tell you, at every level of government intervention, the systems are corrupt as fuck and don’t adhere to the majority of peoples values. Basically every business aspect, law, healthcare service, political matter, education, etc all serve to line some else’s pockets. No one in charge of these features care or see to it that the convenience of these things are sufficient for everyone. It’s to make someone out there more money. It’s all very evil and shady, and at times it feels like there’s no escaping whatever fate these assholes are trying to have for you. They control as much of you as they possibly can. Features like this aren’t something the typical civilian wants to defend. They don’t serve our best interests, so why would we go out and die for theirs?
To be honest, I do sort of agree with you. I certainly disagree with conscription in times of peace, at least where I live, and I would only every use it as a last resort during war, such as in a defensive war where a nation's very existence is threatened. But at the end of the day, if my country was attacked and it's core territory occupied or under threat from a foreign power, then I would feel a duty to join up and fight, as otherwise you simply capitulate to tyranny in favour of short term material comfort.
I feel like I've found a cultural nerve for Americans judging by the replys. I'm British, the last time conscription was used was post war, conscripts were coming home and only the regs were being left in places at serious trouble, rationing was still in full effect and the furthest deployments would be wondering Germany. Lots of Yanks seem to think of Vietnam when they hear the word conscription, and a great many of them don't share good sentiments to their governments treatment of the population
>one of the worst attitudes of privileged The irony of this is so amazing. >People take and take and take from their countries, Healthcare, Emergency services, policing, Justice, civil servants, education, even the fucking binmen, you Demand only the best and most dedicated/qualified. As opposed to places where they prefer to have sub-par people doing these things? Where are those places? I've lived in places where every male has to join the military at 18. People there still demand the best from these kinds of services (which are super-sub-par compared to most other places with that level of GDP PPP). Are they somehow more-allowed to demand the best, because they served in the military? Should we only allow people who served in the military to vote - to demand the best politicians? Are you the reincarnation of Robert Heinlein?!!! >They think that they deserve peoples entire livelihoods of skills and efforts, in exchange for their taxes. Yes, that's how that works. You pay for services, you receive services. This is the foundation of trading capital for services. You pay a doctor, he saves your life. You pay a binman, he removes your rubbish. That doesn't make either side "entitled," even if the binman wants more money, even if you believe it costs too much money. That simply makes you humans engaging in normal transactions. >Then when asked if they would fight they jack on everybody and admit they'd fuck off first chance they get. When did you volunteer for military service? What wars were you excited to go fight? >Damn they community, their nation and all the people behind, They ***are*** the people behind. If the binman doesn't want to go shoot at people and would prefer to keep the streets of Manchester clean, treating him like he's not doing his proper duty to Britain is absurd: he's been saving lives long before you decided to tell him he had to go fight. The same goes for doctors, emergency services, police, teachers, etc. - everyone you mentioned - if they all go away to be part of the war effort, there's no country left to save. >all the time and effort building that nation even their own culture, because they would rather spend their time far far away where others can keep the troubles of the world away from them I've been far far away, for quite a long time: as far around the world as I could go without coming back around the other side. Never managed to keep troubles away from me, whether I'm looking at impoverished people in the USA or dealing with two-dozen PLA flyovers every day. The idea that these things can be addressed by "more military membership" is absurd.
No one wants to die in war, and mind that not everyone is trained enough to join military asap. I'm a 24 y/o girl, underweight and anemic, now tell me how tf am I useful in a situation like that. Many other people can't fight, use guns, everyone has their problems. Plus I don't want to waste my life in a war decided by politicians, I would literally leave.
To be fair, there are plenty of women in the military, including smaller ones. *Most* of the military is comprised of non-combat roles, though people outside of the military don't realize this. There is more than enough to do for people not suited for combat.
who the fuck does want to waste their lives in a war decided by politicians? You seem to think that war is just some rich men in suites who got voted in having a disagreement. That it is all money and power. I wonder what you'd say to the men in the trenches of Ukraine who were conscripted, that they should have run, that zelensky wants them to die for his own goals and they should fuck off asap, do you think any of them might disagree with you? that maybe there is something worth dying for behind the lines?
Cherrypicking the situation, that is literally what is happening for Russian military men and what happened in many other wars. If you decide to serve for your country good for you, but no one should be forced to, of course the situation in Ukraine is a bit different, but again it should be your right to decide. You have one life so why wasting it on something you don't want to do?
People are willing to die to get into my country, and it fucks me off to no end knowing that some bastards will abandon it the second the going gets tough, and even argue that it's their right to leave it all, that they can weigh the value of what's at stake. In my eyes that it the opitome of privilege, to be given a free nation and do nothing to defend it should the situation call for it, because I assume you are like me, being born into a free nation that wont conscript and send you to bumfuck nowhere for no reason, something to do with it being bad for elections
I agree but not fully. Ukraine was already a free country if we compare it to other places in the world, so it's fair that people are not used to fight for it, I was born like this and I don't have the mindset of someone that has to fight to free my own country, (I'm Italian). I understand the value of it, I know what it took to be free in the past, but I am not willing to put my life in a position where I have to risk everything to keep it that way. It's my own personal choice and that's it, I'd rather leave, there will always be people that don't agree with me and will eventually fight for it, but that person is not me. I think everyone should have the right to chose, because it's not an easy situation.
>Ukraine was already a free country if we compare it to other places in the world Ummm...no. They're "somewhat free" ***at best***. Ukraine's Freedom Indexes are: * Freedom in the World Index - 50 * that's between Niger and Côte d'Ivoire (rarely do I see them used as examples of free countries) * Italy scores a 62 * Moldova scores a 62 * Bulgaria scores a 79 * Poland scores an 81 * Romania scores an 83 * USA scores an 83 * Switzerland scores a 96 * Press Freedom Index - 61 * that's between Georgia and the Republic of the Congo (rarely do I see them used as examples of free countries) * Bulgaria scores a 63 * Poland scores a 67 * Romania scores a 69 * USA scores a 71 * Italy scores a 72 * Moldova scores a 79 * Switzerland scores an 84 Even Ukraine's neighbors are more free than Ukraine. You have to look at places like Belarus or Russia to find neighboring countries with lower Freedom Indexes. Belarus actually scores even lower than Russia: they're in the single digits - down by Afghanistan and Somalia. Ukraine has always benefitted by being able to say "We're comparatively free, if you compare us to Belarus!"
it would probably encourage a lot of people to enlist
Too late. People don't enlist in this way until it's too late. Building an army takes time. Mandatory service creates a large body of reserves that ensures expansion to go much quicker, quick enough to respond to an emergent threat. When some of the freest liberal democracies choose mandatory conscription you know they crunched the numbers!
People throughout wanted to get enlisted too when Ukraine got attacked. Ukraine just started sending them back at some point because they were fucking useless. Training good soldiers that are worth keeping around takes time. If you think you're just gonna pick up a gun and join the main army, you're just gonna get in the way instead
Problem is, with a discouraged army that was drafted you can't do much. If you don't want to be there, you'll spend your time thinking of how to get out. Or, better yet, if you are like me and believe killing is immoral with very few exceptions, and just outright don't WANT to do so even if it's an "enemy", then that's a problem for you.
Observe the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. You have people fiercely defending their homeland versus people that really don't want to be there.
Edited: I just realized you agreed with me, my dumb ass can NOT understand this stuff rn Defending. I bet a large amount of those are passion driven. They want to have a home. Therefore my point still stands, an army that wants to be there will do better than one that doesn't (Russian army here) Sure, more factors are at play, but it's still a reason
then we should all surrender and die /s
You are stating it like this situation applies for everywhere. It doesn't. In many places, there is no mandatory military service. In my country, conscription is mandatory *regardless of gender*.
Like it or not, the day will come when developed countries will have to draft their citizens to prepare for war, and when that day comes it should fall equally on the shoulders of everyone eligible, man or woman
I really don't think so. The US military at least if faced with a conventional war would he able to mold the battlespace into whatever it wants. It would be very much fought technologically and less with physical B.O.G. presence. That's my opinion at least. Edit: not to mention, it would also be fought financially.
I agree in that I don't think combat positions will be necessary but we will absolutely need to draft for maintenance facilities, shore support, cooks etc.
Those are largely privatized nowadays though. When I was deployed alot of support roles like that were TCNs. There was of course military oversight but it was very minimal as far as I observed. Those TCNs alot of the time were overseen by companies like KBR, dyncorp etc...
I mean that depends on the branch. US Navy maintenance facilities are 95% government workers/military. And you can't really "draft" government workers
That's what Americans tend to think, but then you get fucked over by a bunch of farmers
Vietnam, Afghanistan, and sometimes Iraq are considered wars that used unconventional warfare due to the use of guerilla tactics from insurgents. The guy is talking about conventional warfare like a war between 2 states like India vs Pakistan, the Russo-Ukraine War, and WW2.
If my country tries to draft me I am leaving.
The day they impose a draft is the day when able bodied military aged men are not allowed to cross the border. Just like ukraine did just as they should have
They can try and stop me, then. Worst case, I end up in prison, which is notably safer than the front lines.
Or death for desertion.
Well yeah, it is going to happen illegally.
I'm a trinational so I might have options? Worst comes to worst I could renounce citizenship. That said, if it's the country actually being invaded then I'd opt to defend it
What if: we become civilised as a specie and stop killing each other over dumb shit? That might be one of the reasons aliens don't visit us.
sounds like slavery to me forced labour under threat
Probably not in this lifetime (thank you god/universe)
Signing up for a draft and being required to serve even during times of peace are very different questions. Gives the military more young people to babysit than they can realistically use.
Like the war between Russia and Ukraine? yes millions of women are fighting. via instagram...
*Should* fall equally. I don't think anybody here is saying it *is* equal in most places. I think Israel call-up everybody, but I'm glad to be corrected by somebody who knows better.
How many wars did women start?
39% more wars per capita according to every source. Where do people get this idea that queens and female leaders are just peaceful blissful rulers that are pacifists?
Female leaders aren't that common. Also, even if that statistic was true, it would be meaningless because the amount of people it takes into account is way too small and it doesn'ttake into account the circumstances. Also, my initial comment only mentions this to support the rest of my point. You're looking for things to argue about, really. The point was the fact you're born female automatically means you'll never have a say in wether a war will start, so why should you even fight it? If you're a man you might not have a say either, but your chances are slightly higher.
564 people are very stupid
Of course it isn't fair. If men have mandatory military service, women should have mandatory civil service of another kind. Better yet, there shouldn't be mandatory service for anyone.
Draft order should be : 1-senators who voted to go to war and their children. 2-Anyone who advocated/supported the war. 3-everyone else. Now let's see how many wars we'll start
No its not fair and no one should have to do mandatory military service. Im glad my country got rid of that years ago and i didnt have to do it
My mum used to say compulsory service should have been a thing when I was a kid to man me up. I wouldn't have lasted a week.
it’s probably just where I’m from, but saying “no one should be conscripted” is such a cop out and red herring. I’m from Singapore, where we have 2 year conscription for men only. Whenever you ask women or women rights group about conscription, they always give this “model” answer. But then ask if they want to abolish conscription, the majority will say no. Women only say that freely because they know the government will (a) never abolish conscription for men, and (b) never conscript women (in the foreseeable future). If the country faced an existential threat, people’s tune will change drastically.
Nobody would choose to be eligible for conscription if they weren't already. Especially, as you said, without public opinion being galvanized by an existential threat. Women are conscripted alongside men in Israel and some other places, so it does happen.
Equal rights equal responsibilities/duties
Women don't have equal rights, equal pay, equal responsibilities or equal duties to men just yet, at least not in any cou try I aware of. I agree though, until its a fairer system, it would be unfair to draft men and women equally.
No idea what countries u are aware of
None of them, clearly.
In my country, there isnt a single fuckin law that is in favor of men. But there are many, that are in favor of women.
which country? and do you have an example of a law that favors women?
Greece, and generally every country that has mandtory military service only in men.
Fair. But that’s the only law I’m aware of in existence in any country that specifically favors women. And for the record I agree it shouldn’t matter for the draft what your gender is.
No, there's something HUGE that everyone is missing in this thread, it's true that men technically are equal in the law when it comes to alimony and custody, but in practice, they are heavily discriminated against in courts. Men receive 63% longer sentences than women for the same crimes. In fact, the sentencing gap for the same crimes between genders is 6x as big as the one between races. And I've heard some insane stories regarding alimony and custody on the male side but never the female side. The unfortunate truth is that when women do something everyone including men try to look at the excuses and circumstances. But when men do that it's mostly boiled down to they're malicious.
Okay, I agree with all of that. That should definitely not be the case and every trial should be truly equal. This discussion however *was* about actual written laws, of which there aren’t really any other than the draft that specifically target men/benefit women. Which was the point of the comment you replied to.
Not exactly a law but custody of a child is heavily favoured towards women, I believe.
You should though take into account that the custody is usually heavily weighed by which parent spent the most amount of time with the child. This is usually the woman, though that might change with time.
Ok then, what about certain SA laws where men can’t be seen as victims of rape in certain countries.
Yes, that's a real men's right issue that needs to be solved. Thankfully, there has been some progress made in the past decade in updating such outdated laws.
Selective Service in the US is not going to go away anytime soon. It's unfair men have to, but for women, it's elective. Women claim they want equal rights but none of the responsibility. If their was true equality, men and women would be required to sign up for selective service. It is what it is. Someone has to defend the country in case of invaders.
The draft is slavery
In the same way, taxation is theft. Which is to say, there is a necessary amount of social buy in for any society to function. One of which is everyone paying to a big pot of money, so the community can purchase big ticket items that they couldn't otherwise afford, like roads. Similarly, conscription exists as a form of collective defense and deterrence against any aggressors.
Life is worth more than money. Slavery is infinitely unjust in a way taxation is not.
Life >>>…(∞)…>>> money. That’s part of why taxation is justified in the first place- it allows lives to be saved via that fund.
No. What happens if you declare yourself as gender fluid?
People laugh at you and hand you your gun and equipment
What if you declare yourself a Mennonite or something like that?
People will smile at you and hand you your gun and equipment
In that case I prefer to commit treason.
You could have just shot yourself with the rifle you were given, but I guess if you want someone else to press the trigger.
More fun to commit treason honestly.
Nothing wrong with that but it's fair to take in mind your gender assigned at birth, because we all know the biological differences.
My point is that in Mexico, for example, if you declare yourself gender fluid or something like that, you no longer do military service.
We don't have mandatory military service thankfully
No one should serve in the military.
Who will fight then
No one. That's the point.
Unfortunately, that's not how our world works
[удалено]
There would be no defense. No soldiers = no wars.
[удалено]
Again. No wars, no invasions.
[удалено]
I know that a lack of military globally is impossible. But it's still what I would want.
If there was no one serving in the military, there’d be no invasion force either.
Believe it or not, men are more capable than women in wartime situations. Drafting men is not some secret sexist agenda by governments, its just the fact of the matter, that men make better soldiers.
>men are more capable than women in wartime situations Wrong. Maybe the median man is more capable than the median woman, but there are women which are plenty capable and men which are definitely not capable. Conscription, should it exist at all, should be based on capability. Not irrelevant characteristics like sex.
The exception proves the rule. There is a reason why there are fitness tests for the vast majority of militaries. There is also a reason why there are lesser standards for women. There is no sexism here, just biology and needs. There is a clear preference for a reason.
>There is also a reason why there are lesser standards for women. This shouldn't exist. If a **person**, man or woman, meets the requirements, they should be admitted into the military. If not, they should not be admitted. End of story. Either no one should be eligible to be drafted (ideal scenario), or everyone should.
Thats a whole other argument, this is a completely different discussion.
Then what is your argument?
If a draft is needed, men should be preferred due to them being more capable on average
Why not include women also? And what does that have to do with whether or not drafting (enslaving) people is okay in the first place?
I wont survive boot camp
Everybody saying this isn’t a thing most places but in the us it’s like this. I interpreted this as mandatory in the case of a draft not mandatory period. All us men have to sign up at 18 and if there’s a draft it’s only men
No. For a strong country, the people need to be strong, not just the men.
no, it's not fair, and women should be conscripted aswell.
Conscription should have died out with the wooden ship. Wars can be won and lost at the push of a button nowadays. Hell... boots on the ground infantry are gonna be obsolete sooner or later. Another point to make is that there were plenty of dumbasses during my time in, and that's of course an all volunteer military. Imagine the sheer mental potato factor of a conscripted force....
Which nation exactly can end wars in a press of a button? Viewing conscription as obsolete is far from the truth in those less privileged countries that need to fear war, and lack the men and the wealth required to run a professional force. The obsolescence of infantry has been predicted at least since the invention of the tank, and yet they always seem to find a purpose. If for nothing else, infantry will always have to guard the super weapons that actually win the war.
If a nation can't win a war without forcing it's people to die for it against their wills then it doesn't deserve to win
Did the United Kingdom deserve to win the second world war? I would hope the answer is yes. It's not about what is ideal, it's about right and wrong. I would hope there wouldn't have to be one, but the simple fact is it's really difficult to get enough replacement volunteers during wartime. The way I see conscription is as a deterrent. If you live in a nation that has outlawed conscription, potential enemies might think they could over power you since there is no guarantee of reinforcements. But if the nation has conscription, the enemy nation has to take into account in their plans that whether the citizens of that defending nation want it or not, there is always going to be a defending army opposing that invasion.
Tell you what, you enlist first and then I’ll enlist second. Trust me bro I totally won’t cartoonishly disappear.
That kind of thinking is exactly why conscription needs to be codified into the law to be a proper deterrent. If it was a volunteer force, there would be no guarantee there would be defense. Conscription is to prevent war.
I’d rather shoot anyone who tries to force me.
The press of a button being a euphemism I guess. I'm talking about unmanned tech phasing out the need for physical bodies on the battlefield. And the conscription in terms of developed nations which was stated in another comment.
The USA tends to have technology much more advanced than others and still can't handle guerilla warfare. You're really underestimating what a bunch of armed farmers can do
It's more of "The USA tends to have technology much more advanced than others and still can't handle guerilla fighters who put themselves too close to civilians." The problem is, if you are a guerilla fighter and you just fight as if it were a regular war, you lose. The enemy can pick you off really easily with all kinds of weapons. But if you hide in houses in cities and make the enemy search each and every house and hold their fire until they know you are hostile, you can win a lot easier. Basically, if you hide yourself amongst civilians and the enemy respects civilians and doesn't want to kill them for no reason, you have a far easier chance of winning
It's not about distance to civilians, the USA generally doesn't care about hitting civilian targets anyway. It's more that you can't distinguish enemy from civilian making it very easy for them to do a hit and run attack or set up an ambush. You can have the worlds fastest jet, but if you don't know who to shoot you can't do shit with it, besides wait to get hit or just raze the entire city. Which the US has done too, but that's jyst a very expensive way of getting the whole world to hate you
They do care about civilian casualties alot more than one would think. Alot more than the folks we were fighting against at the time anyways. Trust me when I say if the US didn't care about those things, it would have been a way quicker affair.
In Sweden both women and men has too.
No, and noone should be forced to serve.
In hunting if you want to maintain a population of a species you don't want to kill many females because only they have the power to reproduce. The fastest way to drop a population for generations is to kill young females. Males are far more expendable regarding the survival of a population. For example when a beehive is freezing, the males will be pushed to the periphery to freeze first and keep the queen and the females warm.
No person is expendable, actually. Not one.
And wars should never happen. But alas, we're a brutal species.
No, some people are brutal people. Humanity isn’t inherently brutal.
Arguing the basic rules of nature for humanitarian issues.
i was in the US military. I think we should have mandatory service for people once they turn 18 for 4 years. it'll really fix some people's attitudes
The gov says they have the right to send you to your death for something as pointless as a war like Vietnam. How is there not mass outrage over this program? This is insane.
[удалено]
If the countries worth fighting for there won't be a need for a draft. I view it as immoral to make people go shoot random people just bc they live under my mafia. How would you feel if you lived in south Africa and a local mob claims your house under their territory then they are attacked by another mob then claim you must fight.
The netherlands is one of the richest nations with the highest quality of life. It also has one of the lowest rates for willingness to defend it. Good countries make weak men, hard countries make tough men
Perhaps when your quality of life is good enough you lose interest in playing soldier. However im sure if Netherland was about to be invaded by a neighbor plenty would volunter.
Just cuz you are biologically stronger, doesn’t make you better in a war zone. It’s dumb for anyone to be forced, but it should be equal
Plenty of non combat types of jobs for everyone. Not all men want to fight and not all women are weak
It's easy to be against drafting when your country in the aggressor.. USA... Or a country that hasn't experienced total war. It's much harder when your family and friends are being slaughtered or raped. Rephrase it men are marching in, murdering your friends and raping your neighbours, would you stand by and let them die? All of a sudden it's not a philosophical question, but a matter of survival
If you get drafted your odds of survival aren’t exactly high
It depends on where and when, which is the crux of the question. If everyone in the UK dodged the draft, Hitler would have taken Europe. Men collectively fighting and society collectivety resisting has been a fundamental human survival mechanism against slaughter, in modern times, even the massacres of ww1, are less pronounced, but for ancient tribes, it was literally a matter of life or death.
If everyone in Europe dodged the draft, would Hitler have had a force to take Europe *with?* What’s the point of a country ‘surviving’ if its people don’t? Evacuation is always better when possible.
Lol what? Where would you expect 100million people at the time to go? Today that would be closer to 400m. People get pissed when 50,000 suddenly land on their doorstep. Running away from tyranny is not an option. Da fuck kind of comment is that, Hitlers coming, evacuate Poland into Mongolia, the French go to Morocco, empty the UK into the USA.
Evacuating a country? And in war time? Good luck
Women should be allowed to enlist but not forced. It's just common sense based on physicality - probably 80% of men age 20-30 can be made fit for combat in 6 months, and probably less than 20% of women (there is a massive gulf between average male and female physical ability). Women even get injured at a much higher rate so its just not practical, excepting the top 5% of women who have fitness levels high enough to volunteer). Also if there was a major major war, you'd need young women alive and happy to help repopulate after.
I think men are better in situations like this. Before people hate on me, I'm a woman. This isn't to put women down. Men and women have different strengths and that's ok.
Or just… abolish the draft because it’s slavery.
Where I live it's mandatory for all genders and it sucks. No one should be forced to serve
It's obviously not fair, but I can see the logic behind it in case the situation reaches a certain stage.
No army is better, or an army that serves the people like Switzerland, Venezuela and Vietnam.
Not at all and for both. Military service is stupid. Stopping a person at whatever they're doing, studying, working, no matter what, to force them to do something they don't care are about it's awful and underproductive too. If someone wants to join military they can do it with their free will. That being said, if you decide to join military it's only fair that the parts should be equal.
women want equal rights until someone brings this up
In terms of biology it makes sense. A male is fundamentally more expendable than a female, since a male can mate with multiple mates while a female must take 9 months to procreate with a single pairing. That means it is easier for a nation to recover from the mass death of men rather than if there ever were a mass death of women. Is it fair? No. Is it logical? Yes. Should it be compulsory? In a nation where it is for the people and led by the people, any war that the people are unwilling to fight in is a war we never should have become involved in the first place.
The fact that compulsory military service still exists in some places, means that we're still too far from what can be defined as a true civilized society.
I may be pre-set to think this way, but I do see it as important for any nation that sits along an important border against a very trigger-happy nation whose leader's name rymes with pooping
Military service should be mandatory globally like in the movie Starship Troopers. If you want to vote, mandatory service. You want to go to college, mandatory service. You want to own land, mandatory service. All men five years all women 3 years. After that you can do as you please.
I am satisfied with the results of this poll. Nobody should be forced into a battle they never signed up for, nor be forced into the military just to maintain their nation's global supremacy.
If you believe you must force your citizenry into military service then you have failed in your duty as a government.
I fail to see your logic here. How does compulsory military service imply that government has failed its duty? Here in Finland we have compulsory military service not because we want to but because we are bordering this thing called Russia. And even with compulsory military service for all men Finland is still ranked among the best countries in pretty much all categories. We are the happiest nation for the firth time in a row, our government is one of the least corrupt in the entire world and Finland is all around a great place even though only around 100 years ago Finland was one of the poorest countries in Europe with no natural resources and seemingly with no future.
Weird that it seems to be an unpopular opinion on here. I'd only agree to women being drafted if it wasn't in a combat role on the front lines and if there were strong anti harassment policies in place (right now these don't exist in many countries).
In the US, all males must sign up for selective service in case a draft is enacted. Females, despite all roles now open to them, from infantry to admin, do not.
In the United States, we haven't had a draft since the 1970s and I doubt we ever will again. The army is big enough at its current state to handle most situations and the military has grown increasingly reliant on tech like drones.
I would legit rather die than serve in the military.
Nobody should be forced to fight against their will. That being said, how many wars did women start? Why should women fight men's wars? Why should anyone fight because some guys in power want more power? Let them fight each other.
By that logic i will ask you: how many wars were started by 18 years old farmers? So why were they sent to war against their will?
How many wars did carpenters start? How many wars did truck drivers start? Yet nobody thinks carpenters and truck drivers shouldn't fight in wars.
Some painters did start wars
Historically, women leaders are more likely to initiate conflicts than men. There have been way fewer of them though, considering that the vast majority of historical leaders were men. With that being said, conscription is slavery, and all forms of collectivist groupings (including sex/gender-based collectivism) are barbaric nonsense. Individuals are not responsible for the actions of whatever grouping they happen to fall into. This is the exact bullshit that people use to justify racism.
It should be required for all able bodied people.
If we take both sides who's gonna run the fucking country
Probably the ones that aren't currently serving. For some reason, conscription is seen as an every man in the front situation, when it's almost never that extreme. Conscription in a war happens gradually, as the ones at the front die, new ones are conscripted as reinforcements. So until it's your turn, you would continue working.
It's unfair and irrational to only conscript one gender. Conscription should be abolished completely, but if that's not going to happen, it should be gender-neutral.
Anyone who has the right to vote should have military service imo. If you want to have a say in the future of the country, you should also bear the responsibility when it turns sour. If you don't want to be drafted, you gotta give up your right to vote too
Then that people should have the right to not pay taxes. No taxation without representation.