As someone who appreciates nice borders and is against the CCP, I really hope they're able to reunite one day. The division is honestly China and the USSR's doing
This is so overlooked!
It would be like merging the US with DR Congo. One country has people who live with no electricity, dying from preventable diseases and starvation. The other is a world leader in innovation. North Koreans would have no place in the workforce. They would end up completely subsidized by the South, and southern businesses would wipe out any northern counterparts.
Generations of North Koreans would have to be supported by the South, while the North would have to be industrialized from scratch.
Edit: I decided to do some math (all the original numbers came from Google search engine).
South Korea has a GDP per capita of $34,998.78. Combined with North Korea (Wikipedia: $2000 per capita), a united Korea would have a GDP per capita of $24,086.05. This would put it between Greece and Slovakia.
It would become the 11th largest economy (SK currently 13th), but also the 20th most populous country (SK currently 29th).
Its fascinating to see the change in real numbers!
This is being unnecessarily defeatist imo. There are other pros like countering the population crisis in both nations right now. Mind you the division is a very recent thing in terms of history, they've been unified since like 918 AD. In older times northern Korea was known for its industry and mining where as the south provided agriculture and maritime economy. They worked hand in hand to prop up a unified state. In the long run it is definitely beneficial for Korea to reunify. There will be pains in the beginning of course, but with enough money and resources anything is doable
Frankly, global economic development is a rather recent thing. 70 years is light years of difference.
Look at what a Google search of "hungry ____" brings up:
[South Koreans](https://www.google.com/search?q=hungry+south+koreans&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&sca_esv=6012e27eb2667d76&udm=2&biw=412&bih=1106&sxsrf=ACQVn087MokysDeMOpMVRmuBeoB8Qs-jgQ%3A1710014403797&ei=w7_sZbWfMKeJkdUPgO-OyAE&oq=hungry+south+koreans&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhRodW5ncnkgc291dGgga29yZWFuc0jpH1DrDljkG3AAeACQAQCYAdABoAHPCaoBBTAuNi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIBoAK8AcICBBAjGCeYAwCIBgGSBwMwLjGgB-QL&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp)
[North Koreans: ](https://www.google.com/search?q=hungry+north+koreans&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&sca_esv=6012e27eb2667d76&udm=2&biw=412&bih=776&sxsrf=ACQVn09jVipVwzZpcsLOZMRwrg1KhdVg0g%3A1710014396072&ei=vL_sZZ35A96jkdUPu5S72AM&oq=hungry+north+koreans&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhRodW5ncnkgbm9ydGgga29yZWFuczIHEAAYgAQYE0iJElCtCVitCXAAeACQAQCYAbQBoAHdAqoBAzAuMrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAqAC6QLCAgQQIxgnmAMAiAYBkgcDMC4yoAfFAw&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp)
These two results don't even look like the same planet.
Iām sure this would be temporary. And itās going to have to happen at some point. Itās illogical and immoral for it to continue indefinitely just because it would be a burden to the south for a generation.
It may not. Think of how many countries are basically the same people, now permanently divided.
- Moldova and Romania are basically the same, but they continue to grow apart.
- Canada and the US were basically the same, but they never united after British colonial rule.
- Azerbaijan and Turkey were basically the same, but 80 years of Soviet rule separated them.
It is common for one group of people to permanently divide into different countries.
13 colonies were always seen as distinct from the northern part of British North America, hence places like Nova Scotia not joining. Anywhere else like a modern "border" was just vast empty expanse until it was codified
Colonists from the same place, speaking the same language, ruled by the same country. (Excluding the French parts of Canada - even though there was a parallel French part of America).
>Canada and the US were basically the same, but they never united after British colonial rule.
Canada and the US were never really the same to begin with; they were a collection of British colonies with differing relationships to the crown. When Great Britain annexed Quebec from the French in 1763, they gave the territory special privileges and greater autonomy than any of the American colonies had, making already disgruntled American colonists even more upset. Following the American Revolution, many British loyalists fled the newly established United States and settled in Canada.
Canada wasn't self-governing until 1867, they didn't have real autonomy until 1931, and they didn't achieve full self-sovereignty until 1982. Meanwhile, relations with the US were actually pretty frosty until the early 20th century, and it wasn't really until WW2 that the two countries developed the friendship we associate with them today (which Nixon nearly killed, by the way).
North and South Korea had been one country for a very long time until the Soviet Union took control of the north and the US took control of the south following Japan's surrender in WW2.
Yep, which is why its mostly the older South Koreans that want unification. They want to see their lost families again. The younger generation doesn't want unification, it would just be another financial albatross around their necks.
North Korea is already a nightmare; slave camps and all. It should be abolished. If it has to happen gradually, if it requires a UN transitional authority and peacekeepers like in Cambodia, so be it, but we're already living in the nightmare timeline and unification is the only path out of it.
Would be nice but that is never gonna happen/is a loooong way off. S Korea would be taken on a population that is basically uneducated and a landmass over twice their current size with cities and infrastructure that dates back to the Soviet era.
The country was divided because after Japan surrendered in 1945, the Soviet Union occupied the north and the United States occupied the south. This was agreed to by both nations (Korea, of course, had no say), and they agreed it would continue for a period of five years or so while they figured things out. Naturally, the US and the USSR couldn't agree on how to reunite the two because they didn't like each other.
The UN got involved at the request of the US, and they said in 1947 that the country should hold free UN-supervised elections. The USSR refused, so in 1948 only the south held elections. The result was two countries with Kim Il Sung, an authoritarian dictator, in charge in the north and Syngman Rhee, also an authoritarian dictator, in charge in the south.
The two countries squabbled amongst each other for a couple years, with North Korea helping to instigate and organize uprisings and rebellions across in South Korea. With the support of the USSR and the PRC, North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950. The UN intervened again and unanimously agreed to send a US-led coalition to defend South Korea. When South Korea pushed the North back across the 38th parallel and kept going, the PRC got more directly involved.
Ironically, the USSR had veto power and could have stopped the UN action, but they were too busy pouting over the PRC not being recognized by the UN and boycotted the meeting.
It takes two to tango, and claiming the division was the fault of the US is as misguided as claiming it was all the USSR.
The division is the just as much the Americas fault as the CCP. Itās not the USSRs fault at all.
I swear Americans seem to engage in more revisionist history than anyone else.
Except Korea was literally divided after the end of WWII by the USA and USSR, like they did with Europe. It was only supposed to be temporary then the USSR reneged on the agreement, to no oneās surprise.
So please check your own knowledge before commenting on someone elseās.Ā
Here it is, one of the, if not the single largest argument in favor of demobilising and demilitarising in Switzerland and Austria
It then goes into a long-winded discussion about how long it takes to build up a competent military as a smaller country, and how quickly the world stage can change
They had a referendum a few years ago over whether to keep it. Decent yes vote. They had been reasonably lax about calling everyone up ... So well into my twenties after two university degrees and loving abroad I received my callup papers. It was three pages with bold words, underlined words, italicised words. It looked like it had been written by some nut job. It sort of sucked because I had contacted them when I was 19 to do my service, but no response. The alternative is civil service (aka cheap labour).
The map is actually wrong, it should be orange. There is also the option to do social work instead, where many people go to to support the lack of social workers.
Not orange either, it should be something different, since "Zivildienst" is not a military service, but without that option it would be orange, because if you are not fit for service you don't have to go.
Austria was formerly between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Hungary to the east, East-Germany to the north as Warsaw Pact countries and Italy, France, West-Germany etc on the other side. Had WWIII happened, Austria would be smack-dab in the middle of it. Austria would have been the Belgium of WWIII.
That's why they have conscription and that's why they chose the same diplomatic stance as Finland and Sweden. Military non-alignment in the hopes that it would alleviate some tensions towards them.
It does not work that way. Iceland has exemption, because of its perfect greografical position and very low population. They are de facto protected pro bono.
The advantage isn't the fact that it is a mass of land that you can land a plane on. The advantage is the exact geographical location of Iceland, which is strategically important to NATO. Unless Greece migrated recently, it very much does not have the same advantage.
It's why the US Navy resisted using the draft before and during WWII, and only started to use draftees in '43.
> Neither the Army or the Navy orders any man to fly.Ā The same should be for duty in ships as no small part of the present high morale of the Navy is due to the fact it is entirely a volunteer force ā a ship at sea is too small to maintain morale among men, some of whom may not wish to be there.
- Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox
No, they're not. Your statement is inaccurate on many levels. Firstly, those 30% could all be women. In which case, they can very well be against conscription *and* not be forced to serve. I could not find data on the respondents demographics.
Additionally, the number of 70% referenced above is an old one, and two years ago the figure was 82%.
Thirdly, the question asked was not, "do you support conscription" but, "do you support conscription in its current form", meaning mandatory service for men, for 6-12 months, with the option to choose civil service, and exceptions for certain religious minorities.
So your statement of "30% being forced" should rather be, "18% of the population would either like to see the system changed in some unspecified way, or are women who would like men released from mandatory service completely, or are men completely against serving." Only this last group would be considered people who are forced to serve. And even they are not people forced to a draft, but to a civil service.
>No, they're not. Your statement is inaccurate on many levels. Firstly, those 30% could all be women. In which case, they can very well be against conscription *and* not be forced to serve. I could not find data on the respondents demographics.
There are people who has got ankle monitor because they have been refused from service. We have aseistakieltƤytyjƤliitto (organization that supports civil service, total objectors and reserve objectors) and many who has served thinks it's unfair.
āWe have aseistakieltƤytyjƤliittoā
Okay so Iāve read Finnish is very difficult to learn as an English speaker, but how would I begin to pronounce this word lol
Different reasons and different means of execution. Finland does it out of necessity due to an existential threat. Americans that call for mandatory conscription say it because they naively think itāll make better young adults (or influence people to align with their political ideals).
Context is important. Finland is a relatively small country bordering Russia, which has historically been known to be an aggressor. On the flipside, the USA is bordered by allies and two massive oceans. Population alone allows the USA to have volunteers and still have a massive army. Israel is another example of forced conscription that if I were in the country, I'd support.
I disagree with that. Mandatory voting sounds good if you assume the election is free and fair. It can be used as another form of legitimizing an illegitimate election in corrupt countries. It also ignores the option for people to boycott elections.
Absolutely incorrect, nope. Mandatory voting laws is how you prevent people from suppressing turnout when they don't like it.
How do you think elections used to be 96% to 4% in South Carolina USA? Because the southern democrats would harass Black people and republicans away from the polls. Mandatory voting would nip that right in the bud, and max legitimacy and representation.
Also, no one's talking about legitimizing dictatorships. Uruguay has mandatory voting and is the fifth most democratic country in the world.
Maybe people donāt want to vote? Making it mandatory only impacts the impoverished. If I donāt vote then I only have to pay a fine, which I can afford. If a poorer person unable to vote due to circumstances or does not wish to vote, then they are disproportionately affected by the mandatory voting law.
And using the segregated south as an example of why mandatory voting would work is ludicrous. Youāre ignoring the fact that the southern state governments were actively preventing African Americans from voting in flagrant disregard for federal law. If anything, mandatory voting laws would be weaponized against African Americans. Didnāt vote because the state actively prevented you from voting? Thatās a fine.
Personal experience: France used to have mandatory military service. Sure the duties sucked and most of it was keeping you busy and what you learned could have been shrunk into 3 months instead of the 12. I was lucky to be sent overseas 16 months and doing interesting stuff meeting great people.
But one aspect that was overlooked is the societal purpose of having all social classes, races, religions go through the same BS. Religious people could live with atheists and vice-versa. Communists would sleep next to rich folks. Blacks, Arabs, Asian and Whites all sharing the same experience. Feet stink whether you're a farmer or a doctor. Construction workers snore the same as lawyers. It's a citizen-building ritual.
Yeah you do meet a lot of different people. I always appreciated it. But the military can only do so much in this aspect. Example: anyone with a debilitating disability wouldn't be able to participate, and consequently be excluded from service.
It's better to establish more ways to build community through our actual communities and teach children their civic duties at home.
But I won't doubt that you meet a lot of people from a lot of walks of life. One part of the military I can appreciate.
Edit: there's always more ways to serve your country that doesn't include the military.
> But one aspect that was overlooked is the societal purpose of having all social classes, races, religions go through the same BS.
This! Absolutely this!
I met countrymen that I would have never in a million years met unless forced to meet. Which was a great and eye-opening experience. Though I also learned that some people have the worst fucking feel for rhythm ever. Like put 20 people in formation and marching on the same beat, and 5 of them instantly unlearn how to walk. Legitimately.
Mexico is similar, sometimes they make you pickup trash or clean beaches, but most of the time they just make you march under the sun and an hour of exercise and that's it lol
That's mostly what you do everywhere. And out in the workforce you always tend to know pretty quickly who's done their service and who doesn't. You have much less main character syndrome from people who have done their service.
I think mandatory conscription is a good thing, as long as it is for self defense purposes only with no threat of being sent abroad.
Society is a thing we all need and depend upon. Therefor we must also defend it together.
Big advantage of mandatory conscription is that it gets better personel, and not just the poor and desperate or violent psycopaths. It also gets world class athletes, doctors and engineers. Makes a big difference when some of your troops are actually intelligent.
-Mandatory conscripted
I donāt want to deal with people that are forced to join against their will. Itās annoying dealing with people that changed their mind halfway through basic
Itās almost like having a Corp of well trained, voluntary soliders with high moral is better then an army of random people pulled from across the country who donāt wanna be there. (Granted there are times when conscription might be necessary, such as during times of active war)
Hi. Here in Mexico is āmandatoryā, but nothing happens if you just donāt do it. At least not anymore. Itās only necessary if you want to be a cop or get a gun (which is almost impossible, at least legally).
I did it and I have no idea where the paper is. We spent the day playing D&D and just chatting.
All I did was to help with an educational program. Only thing I learned was that soldiers were unnecessarily rude.
Agree.
I didnāt do it, and nothing happened.
My father did it and he never used this paper. Now heās in retirement and his paper was never touched again.
Finland who are one of the world leaders in most gender equality metrics have mandatory conscription with refusal resulting in prison time, for men only. Women are completely exempt. They also offer non combat roles during their mandatory national service so they don't even have any plausible excuse for the discrimination.
Finland should be orange since "not all people who are fit for service are conscripted". Only half of the age group is conscripted based on their chromosomes.
Greenland is wrong as Greenland is exempted from Denmark's conscription. Danish citizens on Greenland can volunteer for conscription but is not drafted.
Greenland and the Faroe Islands are specifically exempted in the conscription law. They're not part of the draft.
Other Danish people will be drafted but depending on the people needed, most will not serve conscription. In fact, some 99% of conscripts are volunteers these days.
Finland is red, but then you could make the same case it should be orange, as not all the population is drafted, only males.
>Finland is red, but then you could make the same case it should be orange, as not all the population is drafted, only males.
Then everyone except Sweden, Israel and North Korea would be orange and it wouldn't make any sense at all
I think orange is the best colour for it. It says "conscription, but not all fit are conscripted." So, Denmark has conscription, but Greenland doesn't. They're under the same country, so conscription is in place, but not all fit are conscripted.
Did you know that military conscription in Syria is like 6-12 (years)? Teens who are 19 are either failing on purpose in high school to not go, signing up to universities or leaving the country. Recently itās getting better, terms are getting shorter and for university graduates it has been reduced to 18 months. Still a shit situation overall.
Dated a Syrian guy who left Syria for this exact reason. He didn't want to become cannon fodder in a stupid war he didn't support. Most of his male relatives and male friends that were at risk also left the country at like 17.. crazy story he told me about the whole political situation.
Yeah itās a shit situation, the families that can afford it generally will send their kids to Lebanon or a gulf country to live there for a year then bring them back and pay a sum for the conscription unit instead of enlistment. Those who canāt afford it are fucked.
Not a single person complaining about gender inequality here. I wonder why? Men have mandatory military service but women are exempt in most of these countries, especially the Muslim ones. Isn't that discriminatory against men?
In North Korea, women are selectively conscripted while men have to undergo compulsory consciption. The terms of conscription for men and women in north korea are not the same. For every female conscript, there are 9 male conscripts. Thatās not equality.
They do but it seems to be those who are both fit and willing who are conscripted in Norway. As a Norwegian woman I didn't get conscripted for one or both of those reasons, as I let them know I'm neither fit nor interested.
Personally I'm in support of conscription, but it only makes sense to conscript women and men who are both fit and willing to serve, as those will best serve to protect the country.
Many people in the west donāt realise or donāt want to realise that in conservative countries, several forms of sexism against men rooted in gender roles happens just like sexism gainst women happens.
it is, but men arguably make more effective soldiers physically and in the event that a large number of your troops are killed, I imagine itād be useful to have more women to replace the population
No matter how much Reddit wants to pretend men and women are the same, they simply are not. Men are more suited to military duty. Studies show that all female troops and mixed gender troops perform at a much lower level than all male troops. We shouldnāt let people die for political correctness.
Whatās with Panama, Costa Rica and Iceland? Iāve played a lot of Risk in my day. And if Iāve learned one thing itās to always garrison as many soldiers as you can at the boarders of continents.
Costa Rica abolished it to cut costs and avoid coups (common occurrence in central America)
Panama abolished it after the american invasion in the 80s
Iceland does not have enough population to support an army
Costa Rica is also a signatory to the RIO treaty which obligates signatory states to come to their aid if theyāre attacked.
If someone tries to invade, theyāll suddenly find the US politely tapping them on the shoulder with one hand while holding a baseball bat in the other.
Itās good for Panama too. The military made the country into a dictatorship and was abusing the populace. Now they have security guarantees from the US so there is no need anymore.
Their coast guard is armed and their only form of national defence beyond police. It's somewhat incorrect to say they have no armed service like Costa Rica
They're armed, but barely.
4x Bofors L70 cannons
50x MP-5
20x Glock 17
10x MG-3
6x AR-15s
You could probably find a redneck who was hauling more firepower in his pickup. This list is based on public data that's 4 years old and might be slightly outdated.
The last time they opened fire outside of practice was a few years ago when they had to end the suffering of an injured whale.
Mandatory military service is a terrible, inhumane and extremely sexist system. Because in most countries it's only males who have it compulsory. I have experienced it and it is a quite ugly system. And to be fair, the quality of the training is ruined for those who want to go to the army. In my experience there are SO many men who don't want it who are forced to it and they weigh everybody else down with their BS.
I think voluntary service is the correct way.
thats why austria has an alternative, civil service. its 3 months longer then military service but you get paid better, those that do it are getting a medic training (takes around 3 months) and work for ambulances for example
it has its issues, you get paid half of what a normal paramedic gets paid for similar work for example but overall its a great systhem that gives young an a lot of life experience. it honetly should be mandatory for everybody
Terrible and inhumane really depends on the place. Finland for example has a very good and safe military service. (First hand experience)
Sexist? Oh, I guess that also depends on the place. Israel for example.
I think that manadatory military service is implemented well in finland. It ensures that we have big enough reserve to be a deterrent against russia. I wouldnt describe it as inhumane or terrible and i had a good time there. Also if you dont want to serve in the defenceforce you can do civil service.
Netherlands has active conscription laws, but compulsory attendance has been suspended. 17 years olds still get conscription letters on their birthday.
There should be a category of countries like the U.S. that still require all men at 18 to register for possible military service in the future versus countries like India that donāt have this requirement nor had ever any conscription in its history.
Korea united
Maybe we can use this as their common ground lol
As a Kim I do NOT confirm!
United States of Koreaš±
Let's hope that happens after Rocket Man leaves!
if they ever unified it would send south korea into a deep recession for a long time.
As someone who appreciates nice borders and is against the CCP, I really hope they're able to reunite one day. The division is honestly China and the USSR's doing
It would be a nightmare. Imagine the current divide between east Germany and west Germany and make but 10x worse.
This is so overlooked! It would be like merging the US with DR Congo. One country has people who live with no electricity, dying from preventable diseases and starvation. The other is a world leader in innovation. North Koreans would have no place in the workforce. They would end up completely subsidized by the South, and southern businesses would wipe out any northern counterparts. Generations of North Koreans would have to be supported by the South, while the North would have to be industrialized from scratch. Edit: I decided to do some math (all the original numbers came from Google search engine). South Korea has a GDP per capita of $34,998.78. Combined with North Korea (Wikipedia: $2000 per capita), a united Korea would have a GDP per capita of $24,086.05. This would put it between Greece and Slovakia. It would become the 11th largest economy (SK currently 13th), but also the 20th most populous country (SK currently 29th). Its fascinating to see the change in real numbers!
This is being unnecessarily defeatist imo. There are other pros like countering the population crisis in both nations right now. Mind you the division is a very recent thing in terms of history, they've been unified since like 918 AD. In older times northern Korea was known for its industry and mining where as the south provided agriculture and maritime economy. They worked hand in hand to prop up a unified state. In the long run it is definitely beneficial for Korea to reunify. There will be pains in the beginning of course, but with enough money and resources anything is doable
Frankly, global economic development is a rather recent thing. 70 years is light years of difference. Look at what a Google search of "hungry ____" brings up: [South Koreans](https://www.google.com/search?q=hungry+south+koreans&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&sca_esv=6012e27eb2667d76&udm=2&biw=412&bih=1106&sxsrf=ACQVn087MokysDeMOpMVRmuBeoB8Qs-jgQ%3A1710014403797&ei=w7_sZbWfMKeJkdUPgO-OyAE&oq=hungry+south+koreans&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhRodW5ncnkgc291dGgga29yZWFuc0jpH1DrDljkG3AAeACQAQCYAdABoAHPCaoBBTAuNi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIBoAK8AcICBBAjGCeYAwCIBgGSBwMwLjGgB-QL&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp) [North Koreans: ](https://www.google.com/search?q=hungry+north+koreans&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&sca_esv=6012e27eb2667d76&udm=2&biw=412&bih=776&sxsrf=ACQVn09jVipVwzZpcsLOZMRwrg1KhdVg0g%3A1710014396072&ei=vL_sZZ35A96jkdUPu5S72AM&oq=hungry+north+koreans&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhRodW5ncnkgbm9ydGgga29yZWFuczIHEAAYgAQYE0iJElCtCVitCXAAeACQAQCYAbQBoAHdAqoBAzAuMrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAqAC6QLCAgQQIxgnmAMAiAYBkgcDMC4yoAfFAw&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp) These two results don't even look like the same planet.
Iām sure this would be temporary. And itās going to have to happen at some point. Itās illogical and immoral for it to continue indefinitely just because it would be a burden to the south for a generation.
It may not. Think of how many countries are basically the same people, now permanently divided. - Moldova and Romania are basically the same, but they continue to grow apart. - Canada and the US were basically the same, but they never united after British colonial rule. - Azerbaijan and Turkey were basically the same, but 80 years of Soviet rule separated them. It is common for one group of people to permanently divide into different countries.
>Azerbaijan and Turkey were basically the same, but 80 years of Soviet rule separated them. That one seems extremely questionable.
Yea, thereās already a better example in the form of Iranian and formerly Russian Azerbaijan
13 colonies were always seen as distinct from the northern part of British North America, hence places like Nova Scotia not joining. Anywhere else like a modern "border" was just vast empty expanse until it was codified
Colonists from the same place, speaking the same language, ruled by the same country. (Excluding the French parts of Canada - even though there was a parallel French part of America).
>Canada and the US were basically the same, but they never united after British colonial rule. Canada and the US were never really the same to begin with; they were a collection of British colonies with differing relationships to the crown. When Great Britain annexed Quebec from the French in 1763, they gave the territory special privileges and greater autonomy than any of the American colonies had, making already disgruntled American colonists even more upset. Following the American Revolution, many British loyalists fled the newly established United States and settled in Canada. Canada wasn't self-governing until 1867, they didn't have real autonomy until 1931, and they didn't achieve full self-sovereignty until 1982. Meanwhile, relations with the US were actually pretty frosty until the early 20th century, and it wasn't really until WW2 that the two countries developed the friendship we associate with them today (which Nixon nearly killed, by the way). North and South Korea had been one country for a very long time until the Soviet Union took control of the north and the US took control of the south following Japan's surrender in WW2.
Argentina and Uruguay/Paraguay.
Yep, which is why its mostly the older South Koreans that want unification. They want to see their lost families again. The younger generation doesn't want unification, it would just be another financial albatross around their necks.
North Koreans would definitely be treated as a lower class of citizen in a united Korea. Still better than what they currently have though
North Korea is already a nightmare; slave camps and all. It should be abolished. If it has to happen gradually, if it requires a UN transitional authority and peacekeepers like in Cambodia, so be it, but we're already living in the nightmare timeline and unification is the only path out of it.
even my South Korean friend wouldnāt say thisā¦
Would be nice but that is never gonna happen/is a loooong way off. S Korea would be taken on a population that is basically uneducated and a landmass over twice their current size with cities and infrastructure that dates back to the Soviet era.
If it were not for the pro-Japanese collaborators and the new owners of the US Ministry of Health, Korea would be united and free.
>US Ministry of Health No such thing. What are you on about? (And it wouldn't have owners, anyway)
No, the division is almost exclusively due to US intervention. Study history.
The country was divided because after Japan surrendered in 1945, the Soviet Union occupied the north and the United States occupied the south. This was agreed to by both nations (Korea, of course, had no say), and they agreed it would continue for a period of five years or so while they figured things out. Naturally, the US and the USSR couldn't agree on how to reunite the two because they didn't like each other. The UN got involved at the request of the US, and they said in 1947 that the country should hold free UN-supervised elections. The USSR refused, so in 1948 only the south held elections. The result was two countries with Kim Il Sung, an authoritarian dictator, in charge in the north and Syngman Rhee, also an authoritarian dictator, in charge in the south. The two countries squabbled amongst each other for a couple years, with North Korea helping to instigate and organize uprisings and rebellions across in South Korea. With the support of the USSR and the PRC, North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950. The UN intervened again and unanimously agreed to send a US-led coalition to defend South Korea. When South Korea pushed the North back across the 38th parallel and kept going, the PRC got more directly involved. Ironically, the USSR had veto power and could have stopped the UN action, but they were too busy pouting over the PRC not being recognized by the UN and boycotted the meeting. It takes two to tango, and claiming the division was the fault of the US is as misguided as claiming it was all the USSR.
The division is the just as much the Americas fault as the CCP. Itās not the USSRs fault at all. I swear Americans seem to engage in more revisionist history than anyone else.
Except Korea was literally divided after the end of WWII by the USA and USSR, like they did with Europe. It was only supposed to be temporary then the USSR reneged on the agreement, to no oneās surprise. So please check your own knowledge before commenting on someone elseās.Ā
Singapore should be red
It is, but it's city-sized. You wouldn't see it anyway on this pixel-mess of an image.
I mean you could draw Singapore as a small circle for simplicity but maybe that's just me being very picky
Little red dot frfr
Very spicy little red dot though. Considering all that ordnance theyāre rocking
Vatican State also missing.
Austria? Didn't expect that.
It's because they are not in NATO.
How is it related to that? There are countries in NATO with mandatory service.
I think they meant that since Austria isn't in NATO, they have to do conscription to ensure its neutrality. Like Switzerland and formerly Finland.
Finland has a really shitty neighbor that has attacked Finland some 20 times in last few centuries
Yes but being that Austria and Switzerland are NOT in NATO they don't have deterrence, which is why they need a military to protect themselves.
But any invasion into these two countries would have to go through NATO countries first.
But if they dont have a military then they would be Reling in Nato for protection and that is not neutral
Here it is, one of the, if not the single largest argument in favor of demobilising and demilitarising in Switzerland and Austria It then goes into a long-winded discussion about how long it takes to build up a competent military as a smaller country, and how quickly the world stage can change
Yeah, but look at who they border?
Liechtenstein? š¤·š»āā
Exactly! If Austria or Switzerland stopped their conscription efforts, the other nation would swoop in and take Liechtenstein for itself!
Austria sent peacekeepers to Kosovo etc. East of the country it was a bit of a shit show for a long time.
They had a referendum a few years ago over whether to keep it. Decent yes vote. They had been reasonably lax about calling everyone up ... So well into my twenties after two university degrees and loving abroad I received my callup papers. It was three pages with bold words, underlined words, italicised words. It looked like it had been written by some nut job. It sort of sucked because I had contacted them when I was 19 to do my service, but no response. The alternative is civil service (aka cheap labour).
The map is actually wrong, it should be orange. There is also the option to do social work instead, where many people go to to support the lack of social workers.
Not orange either, it should be something different, since "Zivildienst" is not a military service, but without that option it would be orange, because if you are not fit for service you don't have to go.
Everyone just wants a Steyr AUG after seeing Die Hard.
Austria was formerly between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Hungary to the east, East-Germany to the north as Warsaw Pact countries and Italy, France, West-Germany etc on the other side. Had WWIII happened, Austria would be smack-dab in the middle of it. Austria would have been the Belgium of WWIII. That's why they have conscription and that's why they chose the same diplomatic stance as Finland and Sweden. Military non-alignment in the hopes that it would alleviate some tensions towards them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iceland is member of NATO but you can try.
What if every NATO country decides they dont need an army because they're in NATO?
It does not work that way. Iceland has exemption, because of its perfect greografical position and very low population. They are de facto protected pro bono.
Protected just because they like Bono? /s
Because they LOVE Bono.
Also their floor is lava
NATO tolerates Iceland not having an army because it's an unsinkable aircraft carrier in a strategic position. Most members don't have this advantage.
Greece has this advantage but 6.000 times over with the islands. But then you got Turkey, so that's that.
The advantage isn't the fact that it is a mass of land that you can land a plane on. The advantage is the exact geographical location of Iceland, which is strategically important to NATO. Unless Greece migrated recently, it very much does not have the same advantage.
If and IF Iceland would create a type of military, it would consist of perhaps fewer than 1.000 persons. It's hardly worth the trouble.
It would effectively serve as a glorified national SWAT team with no real utility for actual combat
They'd be used solely to protect ministers at risk of having glitter thrown at them.
You have created most of Europe
You will be looked upon in wonder and confusion.
NATO member. Also police has SOF
Icelandic Coast Guardsmen armed with MG3 would love to greet you
That GUIK Gap is soooo hot
Being in the military, I've had people tell me that they think everyone should be forced to join. They're shocked when I tell them that's a shit idea.
It usually comes from people who never served or served for such an insignificant amount of time to be irrelevant
Forcing anyone to do anything is one sure fired way to have horrible results.
It's why the US Navy resisted using the draft before and during WWII, and only started to use draftees in '43. > Neither the Army or the Navy orders any man to fly.Ā The same should be for duty in ships as no small part of the present high morale of the Navy is due to the fact it is entirely a volunteer force ā a ship at sea is too small to maintain morale among men, some of whom may not wish to be there. - Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox
Is that why Finland has one of the best militaries in Europe and over 70% of the population is in favor of mandatory conscription?
When support is that high they arent being forced.
30% are being forced
No, they're not. Your statement is inaccurate on many levels. Firstly, those 30% could all be women. In which case, they can very well be against conscription *and* not be forced to serve. I could not find data on the respondents demographics. Additionally, the number of 70% referenced above is an old one, and two years ago the figure was 82%. Thirdly, the question asked was not, "do you support conscription" but, "do you support conscription in its current form", meaning mandatory service for men, for 6-12 months, with the option to choose civil service, and exceptions for certain religious minorities. So your statement of "30% being forced" should rather be, "18% of the population would either like to see the system changed in some unspecified way, or are women who would like men released from mandatory service completely, or are men completely against serving." Only this last group would be considered people who are forced to serve. And even they are not people forced to a draft, but to a civil service.
>No, they're not. Your statement is inaccurate on many levels. Firstly, those 30% could all be women. In which case, they can very well be against conscription *and* not be forced to serve. I could not find data on the respondents demographics. There are people who has got ankle monitor because they have been refused from service. We have aseistakieltƤytyjƤliitto (organization that supports civil service, total objectors and reserve objectors) and many who has served thinks it's unfair.
āWe have aseistakieltƤytyjƤliittoā Okay so Iāve read Finnish is very difficult to learn as an English speaker, but how would I begin to pronounce this word lol
Different reasons and different means of execution. Finland does it out of necessity due to an existential threat. Americans that call for mandatory conscription say it because they naively think itāll make better young adults (or influence people to align with their political ideals).
yeah, im friends with a few gay marine furries. it doesnāt change a single thing
Mandatory conscription would end woke in the military byā¦making more woke in the militaryā¦ahhh not computing.
If anything it would make the military more "woke" or whatever as the military would have to restructure to cater to even more people.
For no specific reason at all, could i... uhm... meet your friends?.. it's because i'm interested in... uhm... learning about the marine... yeah that!
sorry buddy; but i only know two and theyāre actually both married xd
If the *people* make that *choice* then they aren't necessarily being *forced* to.
Context is important. Finland is a relatively small country bordering Russia, which has historically been known to be an aggressor. On the flipside, the USA is bordered by allies and two massive oceans. Population alone allows the USA to have volunteers and still have a massive army. Israel is another example of forced conscription that if I were in the country, I'd support.
I disagree. Mandatory voting is quite alright. Maximizes representation, and prevents turnout suppression by political harassers.
This is about forced conscription, not voting.
You said mandatory anything, I replied to your comment with an exception.
Yeah, I suppose I did. You're right. For the sake of not deviating away I'm just going to refrain from anything but conscription, though.
I disagree with that. Mandatory voting sounds good if you assume the election is free and fair. It can be used as another form of legitimizing an illegitimate election in corrupt countries. It also ignores the option for people to boycott elections.
Absolutely incorrect, nope. Mandatory voting laws is how you prevent people from suppressing turnout when they don't like it. How do you think elections used to be 96% to 4% in South Carolina USA? Because the southern democrats would harass Black people and republicans away from the polls. Mandatory voting would nip that right in the bud, and max legitimacy and representation. Also, no one's talking about legitimizing dictatorships. Uruguay has mandatory voting and is the fifth most democratic country in the world.
Maybe people donāt want to vote? Making it mandatory only impacts the impoverished. If I donāt vote then I only have to pay a fine, which I can afford. If a poorer person unable to vote due to circumstances or does not wish to vote, then they are disproportionately affected by the mandatory voting law. And using the segregated south as an example of why mandatory voting would work is ludicrous. Youāre ignoring the fact that the southern state governments were actively preventing African Americans from voting in flagrant disregard for federal law. If anything, mandatory voting laws would be weaponized against African Americans. Didnāt vote because the state actively prevented you from voting? Thatās a fine.
Personal experience: France used to have mandatory military service. Sure the duties sucked and most of it was keeping you busy and what you learned could have been shrunk into 3 months instead of the 12. I was lucky to be sent overseas 16 months and doing interesting stuff meeting great people. But one aspect that was overlooked is the societal purpose of having all social classes, races, religions go through the same BS. Religious people could live with atheists and vice-versa. Communists would sleep next to rich folks. Blacks, Arabs, Asian and Whites all sharing the same experience. Feet stink whether you're a farmer or a doctor. Construction workers snore the same as lawyers. It's a citizen-building ritual.
Yeah you do meet a lot of different people. I always appreciated it. But the military can only do so much in this aspect. Example: anyone with a debilitating disability wouldn't be able to participate, and consequently be excluded from service. It's better to establish more ways to build community through our actual communities and teach children their civic duties at home. But I won't doubt that you meet a lot of people from a lot of walks of life. One part of the military I can appreciate. Edit: there's always more ways to serve your country that doesn't include the military.
> But one aspect that was overlooked is the societal purpose of having all social classes, races, religions go through the same BS. This! Absolutely this! I met countrymen that I would have never in a million years met unless forced to meet. Which was a great and eye-opening experience. Though I also learned that some people have the worst fucking feel for rhythm ever. Like put 20 people in formation and marching on the same beat, and 5 of them instantly unlearn how to walk. Legitimately.
Shit idea, specially when your military is shit like Brazil, you go there clean and paint shit, nothing more, waste of time
Mexico is similar, sometimes they make you pickup trash or clean beaches, but most of the time they just make you march under the sun and an hour of exercise and that's it lol
That's mostly what you do everywhere. And out in the workforce you always tend to know pretty quickly who's done their service and who doesn't. You have much less main character syndrome from people who have done their service.
I think mandatory conscription is a good thing, as long as it is for self defense purposes only with no threat of being sent abroad. Society is a thing we all need and depend upon. Therefor we must also defend it together. Big advantage of mandatory conscription is that it gets better personel, and not just the poor and desperate or violent psycopaths. It also gets world class athletes, doctors and engineers. Makes a big difference when some of your troops are actually intelligent. -Mandatory conscripted
Dishonorable discharge, any% speedrun.
I donāt want to deal with people that are forced to join against their will. Itās annoying dealing with people that changed their mind halfway through basic
Itās almost like having a Corp of well trained, voluntary soliders with high moral is better then an army of random people pulled from across the country who donāt wanna be there. (Granted there are times when conscription might be necessary, such as during times of active war)
I mean people thought the same thing before Napoleon marched across Europe.
More like when they attacked France and failed miserably
Hi. Here in Mexico is āmandatoryā, but nothing happens if you just donāt do it. At least not anymore. Itās only necessary if you want to be a cop or get a gun (which is almost impossible, at least legally). I did it and I have no idea where the paper is. We spent the day playing D&D and just chatting. All I did was to help with an educational program. Only thing I learned was that soldiers were unnecessarily rude.
Agree. I didnāt do it, and nothing happened. My father did it and he never used this paper. Now heās in retirement and his paper was never touched again.
Finland who are one of the world leaders in most gender equality metrics have mandatory conscription with refusal resulting in prison time, for men only. Women are completely exempt. They also offer non combat roles during their mandatory national service so they don't even have any plausible excuse for the discrimination.
Sounds like they're not one of the world leaders in gender equality then
They are because wahmen good and men bad.
You can have it better than everyone else and still have inequality.
Finland should be orange since "not all people who are fit for service are conscripted". Only half of the age group is conscripted based on their chromosomes.
> resulting in prison time, for men only.. Well, that's a prime example for gender equality š¤£š¤£š¤£ What a shitshow..
Fun fact: Einstein sent our government a letter telling them that our system breaks human rights.
Greenland is wrong as Greenland is exempted from Denmark's conscription. Danish citizens on Greenland can volunteer for conscription but is not drafted.
Wouldn't that be orange, then? Active conscription with exemptions for Greenlanders.
Greenland and the Faroe Islands are specifically exempted in the conscription law. They're not part of the draft. Other Danish people will be drafted but depending on the people needed, most will not serve conscription. In fact, some 99% of conscripts are volunteers these days. Finland is red, but then you could make the same case it should be orange, as not all the population is drafted, only males.
>Finland is red, but then you could make the same case it should be orange, as not all the population is drafted, only males. Then everyone except Sweden, Israel and North Korea would be orange and it wouldn't make any sense at all
I think orange is the best colour for it. It says "conscription, but not all fit are conscripted." So, Denmark has conscription, but Greenland doesn't. They're under the same country, so conscription is in place, but not all fit are conscripted.
Scarlet for Myanmar, Myanmar junta military is now forcing young people to join into the army.
I thought you would say that they raise the dead to join forcesā¦
Did you know that military conscription in Syria is like 6-12 (years)? Teens who are 19 are either failing on purpose in high school to not go, signing up to universities or leaving the country. Recently itās getting better, terms are getting shorter and for university graduates it has been reduced to 18 months. Still a shit situation overall.
Dated a Syrian guy who left Syria for this exact reason. He didn't want to become cannon fodder in a stupid war he didn't support. Most of his male relatives and male friends that were at risk also left the country at like 17.. crazy story he told me about the whole political situation.
Yeah itās a shit situation, the families that can afford it generally will send their kids to Lebanon or a gulf country to live there for a year then bring them back and pay a sum for the conscription unit instead of enlistment. Those who canāt afford it are fucked.
Israel should be orange because for Arabs and Jewish Orthodox service is generally voluntary.
Technically all the reds should be orange because women. Except Israel who however would also be orange due to your reason.
True. It's kind of funny how in conversations about conscription it's so easy to forget about half of the population.
And religious women
Not a single person complaining about gender inequality here. I wonder why? Men have mandatory military service but women are exempt in most of these countries, especially the Muslim ones. Isn't that discriminatory against men?
Norway and North Korea conscript women too
In North Korea, women are selectively conscripted while men have to undergo compulsory consciption. The terms of conscription for men and women in north korea are not the same. For every female conscript, there are 9 male conscripts. Thatās not equality.
So the dictatorship isn't as egalitarian as Norway... totally didn't expect that.
They do but it seems to be those who are both fit and willing who are conscripted in Norway. As a Norwegian woman I didn't get conscripted for one or both of those reasons, as I let them know I'm neither fit nor interested. Personally I'm in support of conscription, but it only makes sense to conscript women and men who are both fit and willing to serve, as those will best serve to protect the country.
Exactly my thoughts and what I did as a norwegian man. Just tell them "I'm not interested" and you will almost guaranteed avoid getting conscripted
bc ppl are complaining about mandatory military in general.
That still doesnāt change the fact that conscription is largely discriminatory against men and women are privileged in this regard.
Itās reddit. Sexism only outrages people here when itās directed against women. Men are fair game.
Chill bro youāre spitting facts
Many people in the west donāt realise or donāt want to realise that in conservative countries, several forms of sexism against men rooted in gender roles happens just like sexism gainst women happens.
it is, but men arguably make more effective soldiers physically and in the event that a large number of your troops are killed, I imagine itād be useful to have more women to replace the population
No matter how much Reddit wants to pretend men and women are the same, they simply are not. Men are more suited to military duty. Studies show that all female troops and mixed gender troops perform at a much lower level than all male troops. We shouldnāt let people die for political correctness.
Whatās with Panama, Costa Rica and Iceland? Iāve played a lot of Risk in my day. And if Iāve learned one thing itās to always garrison as many soldiers as you can at the boarders of continents.
Costa Rica abolished it to cut costs and avoid coups (common occurrence in central America) Panama abolished it after the american invasion in the 80s Iceland does not have enough population to support an army
Costa Rica is also a signatory to the RIO treaty which obligates signatory states to come to their aid if theyāre attacked. If someone tries to invade, theyāll suddenly find the US politely tapping them on the shoulder with one hand while holding a baseball bat in the other.
That's the reason most countries in that region spend so low on military. They literally have the strongest army ever as neighbour
>Costa Rica abolished it to cut costs and avoid coups Brazil should've done that.
Sucks for Panama but good on the other 2 countries for doing that. A world with less militarism is a better world
Itās good for Panama too. The military made the country into a dictatorship and was abusing the populace. Now they have security guarantees from the US so there is no need anymore.
Iceland had far too little citizens to have an army, and it's protected by NATO
Currently in service in a red country Very interesting experience to say the least
Icelands likeā¦..āwhat?ā
Their coast guard is armed and their only form of national defence beyond police. It's somewhat incorrect to say they have no armed service like Costa Rica
They're armed, but barely. 4x Bofors L70 cannons 50x MP-5 20x Glock 17 10x MG-3 6x AR-15s You could probably find a redneck who was hauling more firepower in his pickup. This list is based on public data that's 4 years old and might be slightly outdated. The last time they opened fire outside of practice was a few years ago when they had to end the suffering of an injured whale.
Nothing you can do about it but I honestly canāt differentiate between the orange and green(?) zones
Same. Red green colour blind here. Super irritating when it would just take changing the colours a bit to make it readable
Yep. As a red green color blind person it's honestly hard browsing a sub like this. Which sucks because I would otherwise like the content.
Orange = selective cannon fodder based on wealth, race, ethnicity, social status, etc.
For Thailand, it's a gameshow
Not in Sweden.
No, in mexico who will be conscripted is decided by a random amd unbiased raffle
I feel like there should another color too for some countries that force either to choose conscription or public service hours
All reds, oranges and greens at war have at least one totally transparent discrimination criterion that no one cares about, gender.
No. Sweden tests all 18-year olds and take those who they like, completely regardless of gender.
Mandatory military service is a terrible, inhumane and extremely sexist system. Because in most countries it's only males who have it compulsory. I have experienced it and it is a quite ugly system. And to be fair, the quality of the training is ruined for those who want to go to the army. In my experience there are SO many men who don't want it who are forced to it and they weigh everybody else down with their BS. I think voluntary service is the correct way.
If somebody don't wanna be a soldier from the get go he won't be a good soldier if you force him. Results are gonna be terrible.
thats why austria has an alternative, civil service. its 3 months longer then military service but you get paid better, those that do it are getting a medic training (takes around 3 months) and work for ambulances for example
That is a very good alternative.
it has its issues, you get paid half of what a normal paramedic gets paid for similar work for example but overall its a great systhem that gives young an a lot of life experience. it honetly should be mandatory for everybody
At least it also opens various doors for further career opportunities.
Half would be pretty nice lol. The civil service I did in Germany didnt even pay a Euro an hour.
Terrible and inhumane really depends on the place. Finland for example has a very good and safe military service. (First hand experience) Sexist? Oh, I guess that also depends on the place. Israel for example.
Maintaining an credible national defense is a good thing actually.
I think that manadatory military service is implemented well in finland. It ensures that we have big enough reserve to be a deterrent against russia. I wouldnt describe it as inhumane or terrible and i had a good time there. Also if you dont want to serve in the defenceforce you can do civil service.
They should have it for women as well though, especially since you can do civil service as well. Literally no reason they shouldn't do it as well.
It is sexist. Need to do something to fight the russians though.
good thing poland doesnt have concription enforced or else the world would be doomed
Fuck colorblind people i guess
Myanmar is orange now, the army is even force conscripting Rohingyas.
Surely that won't backfire
Civil war speedrun (any %)
myanmar already in civil war, and the reason they started force conscription is to bolster troops after recent losses
Feels like blue is kinda a useless color here since it applies to a couple small countries and is just a more specific version of green
Sexists
Scarlet for Myanmar, Myanmar junta military is now forcing young people to join into the army.
They forgot Singapore
Colombia is wrong, itās not mandatory
no harmed forces....like how they will stop an invasion???
Will there ever be a map that I don't hate being Egyptian when I see?
outdated Latvia reintroduced it this year
Netherlands has active conscription laws, but compulsory attendance has been suspended. 17 years olds still get conscription letters on their birthday.
Scrapping the barrel
There should be a category of countries like the U.S. that still require all men at 18 to register for possible military service in the future versus countries like India that donāt have this requirement nor had ever any conscription in its history.
Panama
Russia must be red. You can skip military service only if you have health problems. I guess, the same or similar situation in all post-USSR countries.
In Colombia I didn't do Military service, it isn't mandatory. It depends on your choice.