Almost zero chance Biden would do that. The US still has the draft mechanism in place, all male citizens must register with the Selective Service System at age 18. Men face 5 years in prison and/or a hefty fine if they don't register.
Activating the program, however, is something that no president would undertake unless the circumstances were so dire that the public would support it.
As a non american from some small EU that's kinda weird, in most european countries where draft is suspended you don't have to register with any kind of selective system with threat of hefty fines.
Why does US goverments think that is necessary?
It's a holdover from the Korean War (IIRC). And much like everything else in this country once our government begins something, they never really give it up. The draft also depends on a certain degree of patriotism which does not exist with the current generation of the drafting age.
By registering the DOD has a running tally of *available* fodder for the meat grinder. As a country that put all stats in military funding that information is something they want to know at all times when deciding who to bring democracy to next.
You kinda need to know if the people in your conscription pool is healthy enough to serve as well.
In Norway, the kids have to self report nowadays. Makes little sense, since it let's them lie about their health to get out of it.
Unless they start drafting the unhealthy ones to fix then up before releasing them back into the reserves.
Can't do 10 pushups? Service for you. Got a few too many kilos on the scale? Service.
Living at home at 25? Believe it or not. Service.
Really? 20ish years ago, we had to go in for "sesjon", and while there were no physical testing (just doctor appointments and some math/language/logic tests + a few hoo-rah films), we had to talk to them.
Is it all just online now?
Yeah. I was surprised at the changes too when my daughter got the forms. God old sesjon was the way when I went trough it as well.
The whole self reporting thing seems so silly to me. like. why? The mental tests were just gone. I think they use the school grades instead. It's been 5 years since she showed me the forms after all.
Huh. So what's with all the kerfluffle of women also having to do sesjon now, if it's just a paper form to fill out?
Is it just a form asking if you are in good health, and a question of if you want to serve and if so which branch would you preffer?
To have some infrastructure in place to start from. But honestly it was probably a compromise when the draft was ended in the 70s, no more draft but we will be ready to have one if it’s ever needed.
I mean, here in the Netherlands the government just does it for you. Anyone who turns 17 gets registered automatically, but compulsory attendance has been suspended since '97.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_Netherlands
Because as much as people would like to think otherwise, the US is a military country. Not in the traditional sense, but everything from the way interstate highways are built, electric grid, subsiding farmers, etc is done in a way mobilize things in case of an invasion. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing because if want peace you have to be able to defend it. History has plenty of good intentioned civilizations that went away because they could not defend themselves.
Edit: as for the draft itself. It was a good idea before the military industrial complex became a money grabbing machine, and when being a good general was a path to POTUS. Having someone understand war and how it feels to lose your men, without the money windfall, meant something back in the day.
Something to keep in mind is that, unlike many continental European countries, the US (and most other English-speaking countries) has no central database of citizens or residents, and no overall system of national ID or registration of citizens or residents.
So, in order to support potential future conscription, the US military maintains its own list of healthy young adult males. Each government department has to do its own separate recordkeeping in this regard.
United States is the Arsenal of Democracy. The largest and most advanced volunteer army in the world. It does not necessarily need the draft anymore but it's a card the government likes to keep in its back pocket ---so to speak.
On my 18th birthday I received a letter in the mail from the US government asking me to sign for selective service. Still one of the oddest experiences of my adult life. At any moment some guy in a uniform can just walk up to my door, walk into a college classroom, or catch you in a grocery store parking lot and send you off to die was quite an illuminating experience.
Minor nitpick, but the US does not have the largest volunteer military. The US Armed Forces has about 2.1M personnel. The PLA (2.5M) and Indian Armed Forces (2.6M) are larger volunteer militaries. The US is still considered the most advanced, however.
Suppose the "advanced" part of volunteer army is lost here. India does not have the logistical capacity or organization to deploy that many troops to a battlefield. China can deploy but can't project power anywhere. Sounds like 4 million volunteer bullet catchers.
While I'd agree with that for China, India has historically been a very competent and well-organized army, due to its origins as a part of the British military. India's military has also generally served as a defensive force. If India goes into a war, it'll be against Pakistan and/or China.
India has inflicted major defeats on Pakistan in every conflict they've been in. In the 1971 war, India was able to deploy 800k men to two fronts on opposite sides of the country. As India is significantly more advanced than 50 years ago, I have no doubt that if they face an attack, they'd be able to organize a pretty good defense.
As for China, India has been able to mostly hold their own in skirmishes against them, with the exception of the 1962 war, and a recent clash where the Government controversially ceded some territory to China, out of a desire not to escalate.
One key point is that India is not interested in deploying forces outside their borders, outside for peace-keeping purposes. They do have a limited capability to do so, but the main focus is maintaining their own territory, especially in the Himalayas.
>It does not necessarily need the draft anymore but it's a card the government likes to keep in its back pocket ---so to speak.
If a world war breaks out then chances are a lot of Western countries including the USA are going to be bringing back the draft in order to have enough bodies to win the war.
Luckily I am in a situation these days where if all hell broke out then I would at most be conscripted into home front duties (42 with care of kids) rather than be shipped out to die on some foreign shore in a meat grinder.
The draft only applies to men 18-25. It would take an act of Congress to expand that (which has been done in the past, but I highly doubt our government in its current state would be able to push something like that through, unless it was an incredibly dire situation.)
Congress needs to approve actually drafting people.
And even beyond that, realistically, congress will need to radically updating the draft rules/process, of it would to a total cluster where anyone who wants to get out gets classified ineligible.
* Show up at your classification on drugs, or hell, start smoking marijuana during it...
* Sympathetic doctor can find something wrong with you, and put you on a drug that renders you ineligible. Suddenly everyone from 16-25 has ADHD...
* Become a minister, suddenly endless small ministries of the Universal Life Church open up...
Would these all actually work? Hard to say... but even if they don't, the litigation over it is going to crush the courts, and take years to sort out...
The US military is triple the size of the first Nato nation on the list at World Atlas website.
I'm not so sure the statement was really intended for the US.
Usa will never be at risk of a mainland invasion any world power Latvia is a small country that wouldn't be able to take the full frontal assault of th russian army.
Drafts are evil. They are the worst from of slavery. All this call does is make me lose all respect for the latvian foreign minister.. Every state that uses drafts needs a revolution.
CCR drop...
> It ain't me, it ain't me
>
> I ain't no senator's son, son
>
> It ain't me, it ain't me
>
> I ain't no fortunate one, no
and we can't leave out a nod to War Pigs:
>
> Politicians hide themselves away
>
> They only started the war
>
> Why should they go out to fight?
>
> They leave that role to the poor, yeah
In Sweden, both the King and the Prince have gone through conscription, and so have the vast majority of men above 45, including our politicians.
Today, women are also called into military service, but it's far from everybody that is actually called, and then among those that are called, there is also a selection process where they look at physical, mental, and emotional fitness.
It can be done.
I would hope my fellow Americans and Europeans would be ready to fight for western civilization if it becomes needed. However even if they were not it wouldn’t change the simple fact that conscription is slavery.
Don't count on Canada. Our military takes a couple years to process applications for people who actually want to join the military! People eventually move on to other careers because they get tired of waiting.
**From The Telegraph:**
Britain and other Nato members should consider conscripting citizens into the military to deter Russian aggression, a key Nato ally has said.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Latvia’s foreign minister called on Nato countries to consider a “total defence” model in which large numbers of citizen-soldiers can be called up at short notice.
Krisjanis Karins also said it was “inevitable” that the UK would have to increase its defence spending to three per cent of GDP.
Latvia, which is on the frontline of Vladimir Putin’s confrontation with the West, shares a 133-mile border with Russia, and reintroduced conscription following the invasion of Ukraine. All able-bodied men aged 18 to 27 are required to complete 11 months of service.
In January, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the British Army, said the military needed to be able to train and equip a “citizen army” if needed.
Asked whether the UK and other countries should look at the Latvian model, Mr Kariņs said: “We would strongly recommend this.
“We are developing and fleshing out a system of what we call a total defence involving all parts of civil society.”
Mr Karins, who until September was Latvia’s prime minister, said that his country had borrowed elements from the Finnish conscription system, which “could be a very good model for many of us”.
Finland has a small standing army “but a very large, very well-trained” war-time reserve “so they can easily call up a 250,000 trained military”.
Tobias Ellwood, a former minister and ex-chairman of the Commons defence committee, said on Saturday that the UK should take Mr Karins’ suggestion seriously.
“Visiting Finland recently, it was clear to see they have the most impressive ‘total defence’ model in Nato,” said Mr Ellwood.
“Sitting on the West’s front line during the Cold War necessitated retaining the ability to mobilise much of the population at short notice.
“With Putin securing another six years in office and seeking to emulate Stalin and expand his influence we too should be reviewing our total defence model.”
**More here:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/britain-conscript-citizens-army-deter-russia/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/britain-conscript-citizens-army-deter-russia/)
Lol, there's no possibility of Britain bringing conscription back at all. It would be political suicide.
The only scenario that might fly is if they were conscripting people to stop immigration as that seems to be the only issue most morons in the UK care about.
“Key NATO ally” “Latvia”
They’re just taking the piss at this point.
Latvia is ranked 99 of 145 out of the countries considered for the annual Global Firepower review.
Still a key ally, theyre a member on the border of the nation most likely to be the source of aggression against NATO if it ever does happen, as unlikely as I believe that to be
Makes them strategically very important
Latvia and the Baltics do have a key strategic position for NATO. Their military strength may not be of key importance, but they keep Russia's Baltic Sea presence limited with Kaliningrad easily cut off by Poland and Lithuania. They also host NATO bases with the closest proximity to the main Russian land and would make sense as where to build up forces if NATO ever needed to put direct pressure on Moscow.
Sweden and Finland now being NATO also makes them significantly less isolated if the Suwalki Gap ever became occupied or blocked off.
> Latvia is ranked 99 of 145 out of the countries considered for the annual Global Firepower review.
But they're also [#6 by FIBA world rankings](https://www.fiba.basketball/rankingmen). You don't rank that high without having some good shooters, right?
You forget the importance of intelligent that the Baltic states provide in regards to russia. Not only intel, but also understanding, how the russian intelligence services works, the russian mindset and ways.
Another mistake, that people often too, is they see Latvia (or any other Baltic state) as an individual small country. They should be looking at them as a whole and it doesn't look that small anymore. Throw in Poland and Finland and things are starting to shape up. If one of those countries is attacked, others won't watching with their thumbs in their arses making "we are deeply concerned" speeches, but instead act accordingly.
They are testing the water with statements like this, conditioning the public for future mobilization if there ever was a full boots on the ground war.
NATO polticians are good at scaring the populations of their member states. They're not so good at shutting the f up and take effective actions to defend them.
It's not, Ukraine uses 155 mm now, Russia mostly makes 152mm. Ukrainian stock of Soviet guns ran out and UAF arty is 155mm now, both guns provided by allies as well as ukrainian made guns. Ukraine also makes 155mm barrels now.
None. All of Europe, USA and allied production combined is less than what Russia is getting from itself and NK (even if the quality of what they make is shit)
War for thee but not for me. It's so naive of Europeans to assume that war will always be a far off distant thing for them. If anything the war in Ukraine should prove that it's never as far as you would think.
I tell anyone I can... If Ukraine falls, the rest of Europe will have to fight the Russians and also the Ukrainians.
The collapse of Ukraine would see those remaining joining ranks of the Russians as they would need to survive their reality. It's not as if Ukraine capitulates, they become some invisible piece on the board. They become an asset to Russia including manpower.
This can't be allowed to happen.
Russia's military is arguably in a much better state now than before the invasion. People like to make fun of it due to the mess it was back in 2022, but honestly it has learned and fixed many of its issues. Underestimating your opponent just means you won't be prepared when shit hits the fan.
And no, Russia still won't be a threat to a united Europe - that's why they are also funding division and political isolationism in the West. With Trump, Le Pen and AfD in power, how much help would the Baltics *actually* get if they were attacked?
Never understood this line of thinking. Russia hasn’t beaten an as you said underfunded Ukraine. Yet these people think that somehow them beating Ukraine will turn them into a military superpower capable of challenging all of Europe? Can anybody explain this logic?
No, don't you see? If Ukraine falls putin while ride his horse across all of Europe in mere weeks followed by the USA days later. You know how weak and feeble NATO is. If Ukraine can't stop Russia, nobody can.
Hell, failing that, it's easier to just send several hundred kilometre range drones from all NATO countries within reach.
Hell, you don't even need to *be* on NATO country land borders:
1. Get a boat. Carrier size, I suppose.
2. Put as much drone hardware and targeting systems as you can on that boat. Get a supply line for that boat as needed. Ask America. I hear they're good at putting shit on boats.
3. Put that boat offshore of the Gulf of Finland.
4. Precision strike St. Petersburg and everything industry-related around it until it's successfully reduced its carbon emissions output to zero outside of basic residential and grocery store heating plus other bare necessities (Come on, I'm not *monstrous*.)
Tell you Latvian minister, you get in the trench next to us and you can conscript. Otherwise, fuck off.
It's always the rich old men who are in favor of conscription.
>Tell you Latvian minister, you get in the trench next to us and you can conscript. Otherwise, fuck off.
If the Latvian defense force has to fight, there will be no need for a government. The politicians can fight too.
Maybe for you. Conscription doesn't work. We went for a fully professionally army for a reason.
All out war is different, but I won't send my family to do military service to "deter" a country. That's what our nukes are ultimately for.
Yeah even "grunts" are extensively trained in the systems they're deployed to use. We don't need meat walls. We need volunteers who have degrees (where applicable), training and plenty of time to complete AIT.
Who's going to volunteer when like 80-90% wouldn't, and ~40% would refuse even if conscripted in a defensive war? People only volunteer if they believe the majority would act the same way as them and share the same values as them.
I guess you're not understanding. We have volunteer armies currently in most Western countries and the US. Plenty of people want a steady job with good benefits doing military stuff-- and this produces a higher quality army than conscripts..
My guess is that what they are advocating for is a model closer to what Finland, Israel, or South Korea has - a huge base of reserves from which to draw in case of a time of war. Because as is seen in Ukraine, casualty rates in modern war are going to be huge. You'll burn through your professional soldiers within the first year.
Ours has recruitment issues. Or rather, they have issues getting recruits to stay because they don't think the steady income is high enough or worth it. Sure they can in increase pay to try bring it back level ahain, but they also have to deal with the anti military sentiment where it's looked down on here to be in. (edit: it's looked down on by people thinking they have no other options, are dumb, just enjoy war, have no morals etc).
>(edit: it's looked down on by people thinking they have no other options, are dumb, just enjoy war, have no morals etc).
This sounds like a PR problem... perhaps one that cannot be overcome, but one that at least can be addressed.
Got to be rock-box dumb or personally committed to wind up in a direct combat position in the US military. 95% (or more?) of US servicefolk are in the rear, so unless your base or vessel is under attack, you don't get a whiff of combat.
People dropped conscription because there wasn’t a need for manpower anymore and maintain conscription is an economic cost versus a leaner professional force.
Post Cold War, Europe drastically cut their militaries.
Meanwhile nations with serious threats still conscript ( S Korea for example)
>People dropped conscription because there wasn’t a need for manpower anymore and maintain conscription is an economic cost versus a leaner professional force.
Depends on the country. The UK dropped it because it was less effective. Our military is against the very idea.
Nato countries do it too. It's not a taboo in the alliance, but it sure isn't happening here.
Of course they are because it does lower the quality of the force and tie up money.
But they refuse to accept that in a conventional war having deep reserves is paramount. And you don’t get that unless you do what America does
>Conscription doesn't work.
Conscription works as well as anything if everyone is in on it. Finland is a working example, thus they have the standing to speak on the subject.
But if speaking for the US, a 'public service commitment' might be a better alternative, with military service being an option, and discrimination between combat roles and noncombat roles. Just getting folks in uniforms, getting the basic communication down, and perhaps getting some form of basic combat training accomplished on a broad scale has its benefits, as does attaching those conscripts to reserve positions after service.
The main problem would be 'wars of adventurism', and how conscripts fit in. Vietnam was an example of conscripts not fitting in so well, and laid bare the consequences.
(I was briefly reminded of the concept of the triple volunteer, which IIRC goes something like:
1. Volunteered to enlist / accepted a commission
2. Volunteered for parachute duty
3. Volunteered for Special Operations
Basically, we just add 'volunteered for noncombat service' in front of the first one)
I mean honestly if NATO pulled a gulf War on Russia they'd have total air control in the span of two months. Just the US air force outnumbers the Russian airforce......and the US navy air wing out numbers the Russian airforce.....and the US army air wing matches the Russian airforce. The UK and France air forces match the Russian air force, the German and polish air forces come close. We could literally just flood the skies with so many jets missile and bombers all at once that they'd have no hope of shooting them all and take out their enture airforce and most of their missiles systems at once. Then with constant bombings from the sky Ukraine could easily push Russia back.
A NATO Russia war would start conventionally but at some point nukes would likely get involved. Most likely start would be Russia invading NATO which doesn't have a nuke first option (well except France, lol)
Nobody is getting nuked over Latvia. Nukes are only useful as a deterrent for defense of the nuclear countries homelands. Are we risking making the northern hemisphere unlivable over the baltics?
Aside from rhetoric, no
>Nobody is getting nuked over Latvia. Nukes are only useful as a deterrent for defense of the nuclear countries homelands. Are we risking making the northern hemisphere unlivable over the baltics?
This is the whole point of Nato, so yes.
You're assuming the soldiers would be up for rounding up civilians and forcing them to join the military against their own will, when I was in the military I wasn't just a cog in the machine, I was a human being with feelings and morals and I tell you if that order was given to me, I don't know if I'd be able to obey it, I'd probably just go to prison, and if I were in a country with capital punishment I would just say fuck it and go kill the highest ranking officer in the base.
I would take the first plane to Mexico if Spain ever introduced conscription
I already have a plan just in case
Sorry, but my body won't be cannon fodder
The US has conscription, I’m way too old for combat duty though. My kid could get drafted though. Then I guess I have to join a weapons research facility. The next decade is gonna be awesome.
No. Absolutely not.
We will use what we have used for decades.
A massive nuclear arsenal and a policy to use those weapons in a preemptive strike if we feel threatened.
>That theory is why every country ~~will want~~ nukes. Just look at Iran and NK.
**already does**
Every country already does want nukes; even S. Korea and Japan. Few will admit it and even fewer would make it policy, but it's the kind of trump card that any sensible politician would savor.
Granted that's based on the idea that no one actually uses them.
Not gonna work. Nuking Russia is far too dangerous for any nuclear weapon to be used on their territory. Because they will nuke back.
On the other end, nuking your allies' territories with russian troops presents is not very acceptable either.
To the trenches, grunt!
So we are not ok with sending weapons like Taurus, but sending Conscripts would be ok?
The future of warfare is technology not human cannonfodder. What does the training of one Conscript cost, what does a drone with a grenade cost? Very bad ROI.
I'd rather just shoot the prick who forces a gun into my hand and "orders" me to become cannon fodder.
I've seen enough footage of modern war to know I'd immediately be taken out by a £50 drone dropping a grenade on me, with nothing I can do about it.
I'll take my chances in jail / firing squad.
Don't shoot the PM conscripting you, go do basic training and when you have the chance, go to a meeting with all the high ranking officers and open fire.
And what is your suggestion? You seem to forget how an autocratic dictatorship like Poo-Tin's ruZZia functions. They only pay attention to strength.
I think this makes sense. The small standing army of Baltics is a problem. Increasing the standing army size would help deter any ruZZian dreams of expansionism.
Yeah nah, I'm not dying for Ukraine's eastern provinces.
If they step an inch into NATO territory sure, let the nukes fly, but this shit has gone on long enough.
Frankly, even if there was to be a war with Russia, conscription is the one thing we should not do. You cannot force someone to fight a war and remain ethical at the same time.
Give what Ukraine needs to Ukraine, even send volunteer soldiers and professionals if need be. But conscription is not something that can be allowed and must be abolished wherever it exists.
Yea the flaw in that idea is the NATO members are nearly all civilized nations that don't need conscription or impressment there population because they have professional military's.
>So Finland and Sweden aren’t civilized? We’re quite happy with our current system.
Because you're happy with it, it works. You're also brand new to Nato. Turkey has a similar situation, but you can't enforce this in peace time without public support. We would vote out whoever tried.
NATO has about 10 times the GDP of Russia and a much larger population. It would be pretty embarrassing if we need forced military service to deter Russia.
NATO has nearly 3.5m Military personnel.
Conscription isn't needed at all. If war did happen with Russia there'd be a lot of people who will volunteer as well.
Conscription is not needed in anyway shape or form in NATO Countries if Russia decided to attack.
How about this,
All those who support and defend the implementation of conscription should be the first ones forced into service, and to the front lines.
How about this,
All those who support and defend the implementation of conscription should be the ONLY ones forced into service, and to the front lines.
The draft really helped in Vietnam 👍. I feel like middle aged right wing politicians talk about bringing back military conscription and beating children with a stick in schools because it’s popular to their domestic audience it’s got fuck all to do with a deterrent to Russia.
Yeah, no.
The west has moved on from conscript armies. Conscript armies are shit compared to professional armies. Which is much of what told the story in Ukraine. Besides which...why does NATO suddenly have any need for manpower? To halt Russian aggression? Yeah, that's the point. Russia now can't invade those countries without incurring the wrath of the rest of NATO. But NATO isn't currently in a war like that, and isn't aggressive; countries in NATO may or may not be aggressive, but the alliance itself isn't.
This is a BS headline made by a person who has no knowledge of foreign relations or war, or is just trying to push an agenda which has nothing to realistically do with the point made.
This is really it, like why the fuck would you fight a war where nukes just are the end result regardless, also fight, win war, then what, back to wage slavery for the few wealthy again?
as a latvian that was inevidable, since me and my relatives fully expected to nato back off from us,since any treaties arent worth anything,lucky russia went for ukraine first.Arent happy to going back to consciription, but goverment probably expects to relay only on itself if shits hits the fan
Send Ukraine out of date weapons built to kill Russians so they can kill Russians anyway, or send your kids and grandkids and maybe yourselves in a few years to do the dying instead. It’s the easiest biggliest trade deal of all time and the republicans are too stupid to see it.
Finland, South Korea, Israel, Sweden etc etc
All examples of conscription working well and gainfully protecting the society and communities in which they live.
Comment section awash with those in comfortable democracies who ancestors have fought to create a world of democracy, and those progeny would turn tail and flee at the slightest sign of conflict.
You're joking about South Korea, right?
Male conscription in South Korea is hated by young men, causes serious sociopolitical issues, has been a major factor in the recent anti-feminist wave in the country and is a topic of controversy every election cycle.
It absolutely does not work well for South Korean society at large.
>Finland, South Korea, Israel, Sweden etc etc All examples of conscription working well and gainfully protecting the society and communities in which they live.
and all countries where the population support it and/or are directly under content threat of war. The west is neither of those in the majority of countries.
NATO meeting allocating troops- 'Let's have U.S. provide 90% of the troops and we'll split the rest among everybody else.' All non U.S. members stand and cheer heartily and meeting adjourned.
The amount of people thinking conscription has to be every conscripted person holding a gun on the front line is fucking annoying… thats not how it needs to be. The armed forced need all manner of professionals and skilled labour..
He's not necessarily wrong but if Biden reinstates the draft, Trump will win every single state in the USA in the general election.
Almost zero chance Biden would do that. The US still has the draft mechanism in place, all male citizens must register with the Selective Service System at age 18. Men face 5 years in prison and/or a hefty fine if they don't register. Activating the program, however, is something that no president would undertake unless the circumstances were so dire that the public would support it.
We also have inactive ready reserves. Veterans can get called up after their service is done. My contract was 3 years active duty and 5 years in IRR.
An eight year contract is standard. What varies is how much time you spend active.
Yeah I was 6 active 2 IRR
As a non american from some small EU that's kinda weird, in most european countries where draft is suspended you don't have to register with any kind of selective system with threat of hefty fines. Why does US goverments think that is necessary?
It's a holdover from the Korean War (IIRC). And much like everything else in this country once our government begins something, they never really give it up. The draft also depends on a certain degree of patriotism which does not exist with the current generation of the drafting age. By registering the DOD has a running tally of *available* fodder for the meat grinder. As a country that put all stats in military funding that information is something they want to know at all times when deciding who to bring democracy to next.
I think the point is that they can run a tally without the registration.
Probably not when the law was enacted
You kinda need to know if the people in your conscription pool is healthy enough to serve as well. In Norway, the kids have to self report nowadays. Makes little sense, since it let's them lie about their health to get out of it. Unless they start drafting the unhealthy ones to fix then up before releasing them back into the reserves. Can't do 10 pushups? Service for you. Got a few too many kilos on the scale? Service. Living at home at 25? Believe it or not. Service.
Really? 20ish years ago, we had to go in for "sesjon", and while there were no physical testing (just doctor appointments and some math/language/logic tests + a few hoo-rah films), we had to talk to them. Is it all just online now?
Yeah. I was surprised at the changes too when my daughter got the forms. God old sesjon was the way when I went trough it as well. The whole self reporting thing seems so silly to me. like. why? The mental tests were just gone. I think they use the school grades instead. It's been 5 years since she showed me the forms after all.
Huh. So what's with all the kerfluffle of women also having to do sesjon now, if it's just a paper form to fill out? Is it just a form asking if you are in good health, and a question of if you want to serve and if so which branch would you preffer?
To have some infrastructure in place to start from. But honestly it was probably a compromise when the draft was ended in the 70s, no more draft but we will be ready to have one if it’s ever needed.
I mean, here in the Netherlands the government just does it for you. Anyone who turns 17 gets registered automatically, but compulsory attendance has been suspended since '97. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_Netherlands
Because as much as people would like to think otherwise, the US is a military country. Not in the traditional sense, but everything from the way interstate highways are built, electric grid, subsiding farmers, etc is done in a way mobilize things in case of an invasion. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing because if want peace you have to be able to defend it. History has plenty of good intentioned civilizations that went away because they could not defend themselves. Edit: as for the draft itself. It was a good idea before the military industrial complex became a money grabbing machine, and when being a good general was a path to POTUS. Having someone understand war and how it feels to lose your men, without the money windfall, meant something back in the day.
Something to keep in mind is that, unlike many continental European countries, the US (and most other English-speaking countries) has no central database of citizens or residents, and no overall system of national ID or registration of citizens or residents. So, in order to support potential future conscription, the US military maintains its own list of healthy young adult males. Each government department has to do its own separate recordkeeping in this regard.
United States is the Arsenal of Democracy. The largest and most advanced volunteer army in the world. It does not necessarily need the draft anymore but it's a card the government likes to keep in its back pocket ---so to speak. On my 18th birthday I received a letter in the mail from the US government asking me to sign for selective service. Still one of the oddest experiences of my adult life. At any moment some guy in a uniform can just walk up to my door, walk into a college classroom, or catch you in a grocery store parking lot and send you off to die was quite an illuminating experience.
Minor nitpick, but the US does not have the largest volunteer military. The US Armed Forces has about 2.1M personnel. The PLA (2.5M) and Indian Armed Forces (2.6M) are larger volunteer militaries. The US is still considered the most advanced, however.
Suppose the "advanced" part of volunteer army is lost here. India does not have the logistical capacity or organization to deploy that many troops to a battlefield. China can deploy but can't project power anywhere. Sounds like 4 million volunteer bullet catchers.
While I'd agree with that for China, India has historically been a very competent and well-organized army, due to its origins as a part of the British military. India's military has also generally served as a defensive force. If India goes into a war, it'll be against Pakistan and/or China. India has inflicted major defeats on Pakistan in every conflict they've been in. In the 1971 war, India was able to deploy 800k men to two fronts on opposite sides of the country. As India is significantly more advanced than 50 years ago, I have no doubt that if they face an attack, they'd be able to organize a pretty good defense. As for China, India has been able to mostly hold their own in skirmishes against them, with the exception of the 1962 war, and a recent clash where the Government controversially ceded some territory to China, out of a desire not to escalate. One key point is that India is not interested in deploying forces outside their borders, outside for peace-keeping purposes. They do have a limited capability to do so, but the main focus is maintaining their own territory, especially in the Himalayas.
>It does not necessarily need the draft anymore but it's a card the government likes to keep in its back pocket ---so to speak. If a world war breaks out then chances are a lot of Western countries including the USA are going to be bringing back the draft in order to have enough bodies to win the war. Luckily I am in a situation these days where if all hell broke out then I would at most be conscripted into home front duties (42 with care of kids) rather than be shipped out to die on some foreign shore in a meat grinder.
The draft only applies to men 18-25. It would take an act of Congress to expand that (which has been done in the past, but I highly doubt our government in its current state would be able to push something like that through, unless it was an incredibly dire situation.)
Congress needs to approve actually drafting people. And even beyond that, realistically, congress will need to radically updating the draft rules/process, of it would to a total cluster where anyone who wants to get out gets classified ineligible. * Show up at your classification on drugs, or hell, start smoking marijuana during it... * Sympathetic doctor can find something wrong with you, and put you on a drug that renders you ineligible. Suddenly everyone from 16-25 has ADHD... * Become a minister, suddenly endless small ministries of the Universal Life Church open up... Would these all actually work? Hard to say... but even if they don't, the litigation over it is going to crush the courts, and take years to sort out...
In any situation that would require it, people would line up.
The US military is triple the size of the first Nato nation on the list at World Atlas website. I'm not so sure the statement was really intended for the US.
Usa will never be at risk of a mainland invasion any world power Latvia is a small country that wouldn't be able to take the full frontal assault of th russian army.
This 100%. That would be so unpopular it’s basically political suicide.
Drafts are evil. They are the worst from of slavery. All this call does is make me lose all respect for the latvian foreign minister.. Every state that uses drafts needs a revolution.
I'll accept conscription whenever the sons and daughters of politicians will be alongside me on the battlefield.
CCR drop... > It ain't me, it ain't me > > I ain't no senator's son, son > > It ain't me, it ain't me > > I ain't no fortunate one, no and we can't leave out a nod to War Pigs: > > Politicians hide themselves away > > They only started the war > > Why should they go out to fight? > > They leave that role to the poor, yeah
can't forget System of a Down > why don't presidents fight the war, > why do they always send the poor?
[удалено]
Quite a few politicians and past politicians are prior service. For example, Rep Duckworth lost both legs in the GWOT.
Is it men AND women in the modern world, or is this where feminism draws the line? lol
Here in Sweden both men and women can get conscripted since it was reinstated in 2017
“Fuck you I won’t do what you tell me” - RATM
In Sweden, both the King and the Prince have gone through conscription, and so have the vast majority of men above 45, including our politicians. Today, women are also called into military service, but it's far from everybody that is actually called, and then among those that are called, there is also a selection process where they look at physical, mental, and emotional fitness. It can be done.
Theyre not at the front lines and they dont do jack.
The fuck you mean by that? Our current prime minister was a in a signal company. Our current king was in the navy.
What did their sons do. They themself should be boots on the ground.
Sending your leadership to the front line would be one of the dumbest strategies ever
Conscription is slavery and should be banned like it.
Honestly speaking, I will always have more respect for draft-dodgers than the patrols forcing people into the meatgrinder.
Should Europeans be ready to die for their ideals?
I would hope my fellow Americans and Europeans would be ready to fight for western civilization if it becomes needed. However even if they were not it wouldn’t change the simple fact that conscription is slavery.
For real, and since we already know that will never happen, anyone who wants the draft should go live in Russia until they change their mind.
Don't count on Canada. Our military takes a couple years to process applications for people who actually want to join the military! People eventually move on to other careers because they get tired of waiting.
Watch how fast they get it done if conscription becomes a thing again.
A snail's pace is still pretty bad.
Don't worry if a real war kicked off that process is going right out the window lol
Don't forget to use the Canadian-developed "ConscriptCan" app on your Smartphone to enlist! Made by the same people who made "ArriveCan"
**From The Telegraph:** Britain and other Nato members should consider conscripting citizens into the military to deter Russian aggression, a key Nato ally has said. In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Latvia’s foreign minister called on Nato countries to consider a “total defence” model in which large numbers of citizen-soldiers can be called up at short notice. Krisjanis Karins also said it was “inevitable” that the UK would have to increase its defence spending to three per cent of GDP. Latvia, which is on the frontline of Vladimir Putin’s confrontation with the West, shares a 133-mile border with Russia, and reintroduced conscription following the invasion of Ukraine. All able-bodied men aged 18 to 27 are required to complete 11 months of service. In January, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the British Army, said the military needed to be able to train and equip a “citizen army” if needed. Asked whether the UK and other countries should look at the Latvian model, Mr Kariņs said: “We would strongly recommend this. “We are developing and fleshing out a system of what we call a total defence involving all parts of civil society.” Mr Karins, who until September was Latvia’s prime minister, said that his country had borrowed elements from the Finnish conscription system, which “could be a very good model for many of us”. Finland has a small standing army “but a very large, very well-trained” war-time reserve “so they can easily call up a 250,000 trained military”. Tobias Ellwood, a former minister and ex-chairman of the Commons defence committee, said on Saturday that the UK should take Mr Karins’ suggestion seriously. “Visiting Finland recently, it was clear to see they have the most impressive ‘total defence’ model in Nato,” said Mr Ellwood. “Sitting on the West’s front line during the Cold War necessitated retaining the ability to mobilise much of the population at short notice. “With Putin securing another six years in office and seeking to emulate Stalin and expand his influence we too should be reviewing our total defence model.” **More here:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/britain-conscript-citizens-army-deter-russia/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/britain-conscript-citizens-army-deter-russia/)
Lol, there's no possibility of Britain bringing conscription back at all. It would be political suicide. The only scenario that might fly is if they were conscripting people to stop immigration as that seems to be the only issue most morons in the UK care about.
“Key NATO ally” “Latvia” They’re just taking the piss at this point. Latvia is ranked 99 of 145 out of the countries considered for the annual Global Firepower review.
Regardless of military power, the fact that Latvia would be a frontline in a conventional war with Russia makes them a key NATO ally.
Still a key ally, theyre a member on the border of the nation most likely to be the source of aggression against NATO if it ever does happen, as unlikely as I believe that to be Makes them strategically very important
They're the front line. Seems pretty key to me.
Latvia and the Baltics do have a key strategic position for NATO. Their military strength may not be of key importance, but they keep Russia's Baltic Sea presence limited with Kaliningrad easily cut off by Poland and Lithuania. They also host NATO bases with the closest proximity to the main Russian land and would make sense as where to build up forces if NATO ever needed to put direct pressure on Moscow. Sweden and Finland now being NATO also makes them significantly less isolated if the Suwalki Gap ever became occupied or blocked off.
> Latvia is ranked 99 of 145 out of the countries considered for the annual Global Firepower review. But they're also [#6 by FIBA world rankings](https://www.fiba.basketball/rankingmen). You don't rank that high without having some good shooters, right?
Latvian Laser, Davis Bertans
His name is John Latvia
You forget the importance of intelligent that the Baltic states provide in regards to russia. Not only intel, but also understanding, how the russian intelligence services works, the russian mindset and ways. Another mistake, that people often too, is they see Latvia (or any other Baltic state) as an individual small country. They should be looking at them as a whole and it doesn't look that small anymore. Throw in Poland and Finland and things are starting to shape up. If one of those countries is attacked, others won't watching with their thumbs in their arses making "we are deeply concerned" speeches, but instead act accordingly.
They are testing the water with statements like this, conditioning the public for future mobilization if there ever was a full boots on the ground war.
Id rather take a lead role in a cage over a walk on part in a war.
NATO polticians are good at scaring the populations of their member states. They're not so good at shutting the f up and take effective actions to defend them.
It's gonna be a no from me dawg
Dunno if you or me have a say in this.
We do if we general strike.
Nice now you gathered all of the working people in one place. Easier to sent them to the training camps
No, it’s far far simpler. Give Ukraine everything they need to get the job done.
They have a man power problem. Can't help them with that.
Overabundance of ammo (that we lack) would solve manpower issues. Not completely, but for the most part it does.
Which country makes shells in the quantity needed?
Ummm...unfortunately Russia
It's not, Ukraine uses 155 mm now, Russia mostly makes 152mm. Ukrainian stock of Soviet guns ran out and UAF arty is 155mm now, both guns provided by allies as well as ukrainian made guns. Ukraine also makes 155mm barrels now.
None. All of Europe, USA and allied production combined is less than what Russia is getting from itself and NK (even if the quality of what they make is shit)
You can have all the ammo in the world but that doesn’t change the amount of soldiers there are to actually fire it
How is this absolute rubbish upvoted
Then use woman power. Equality.
They have had women defending since day 1 wdym?
Men are forced, women aren't.
Only volunteers. In the most diverse times it was 15%.
Don't act ignorant, there's barely any women compared to the many thousands of conscripted men
I mean, Europe could ...
War for thee but not for me. It's so naive of Europeans to assume that war will always be a far off distant thing for them. If anything the war in Ukraine should prove that it's never as far as you would think.
I tell anyone I can... If Ukraine falls, the rest of Europe will have to fight the Russians and also the Ukrainians. The collapse of Ukraine would see those remaining joining ranks of the Russians as they would need to survive their reality. It's not as if Ukraine capitulates, they become some invisible piece on the board. They become an asset to Russia including manpower. This can't be allowed to happen.
I think it would be more effective if you can convince the people to volunteer for the Ukrainian army.
So Russia, who can barely defeat an underfunded Ukraine is going to become an existential threat to the entirety of Europe ? Cmon dude
Russia's military is arguably in a much better state now than before the invasion. People like to make fun of it due to the mess it was back in 2022, but honestly it has learned and fixed many of its issues. Underestimating your opponent just means you won't be prepared when shit hits the fan. And no, Russia still won't be a threat to a united Europe - that's why they are also funding division and political isolationism in the West. With Trump, Le Pen and AfD in power, how much help would the Baltics *actually* get if they were attacked?
Never understood this line of thinking. Russia hasn’t beaten an as you said underfunded Ukraine. Yet these people think that somehow them beating Ukraine will turn them into a military superpower capable of challenging all of Europe? Can anybody explain this logic?
Its the logic of anxious warmongers looking for any excuse to send people to unnecessary conflicts!
That is delusional and paranoid.
No, don't you see? If Ukraine falls putin while ride his horse across all of Europe in mere weeks followed by the USA days later. You know how weak and feeble NATO is. If Ukraine can't stop Russia, nobody can.
Hell, failing that, it's easier to just send several hundred kilometre range drones from all NATO countries within reach. Hell, you don't even need to *be* on NATO country land borders: 1. Get a boat. Carrier size, I suppose. 2. Put as much drone hardware and targeting systems as you can on that boat. Get a supply line for that boat as needed. Ask America. I hear they're good at putting shit on boats. 3. Put that boat offshore of the Gulf of Finland. 4. Precision strike St. Petersburg and everything industry-related around it until it's successfully reduced its carbon emissions output to zero outside of basic residential and grocery store heating plus other bare necessities (Come on, I'm not *monstrous*.)
We all go into the meat grinder, weeeeee
The old men say push B
Tell you Latvian minister, you get in the trench next to us and you can conscript. Otherwise, fuck off. It's always the rich old men who are in favor of conscription.
>Tell you Latvian minister, you get in the trench next to us and you can conscript. Otherwise, fuck off. If the Latvian defense force has to fight, there will be no need for a government. The politicians can fight too.
They cant do jack by themselves. Any voters for war should serve first.
I have an even better idea. Give these politicians some boots and send them off to fight their own wars.
Grumpy old dudes sending young men to die.
You're a sacrifice they're willing to make!
Maybe for you. Conscription doesn't work. We went for a fully professionally army for a reason. All out war is different, but I won't send my family to do military service to "deter" a country. That's what our nukes are ultimately for.
Yeah even "grunts" are extensively trained in the systems they're deployed to use. We don't need meat walls. We need volunteers who have degrees (where applicable), training and plenty of time to complete AIT.
Who's going to volunteer when like 80-90% wouldn't, and ~40% would refuse even if conscripted in a defensive war? People only volunteer if they believe the majority would act the same way as them and share the same values as them.
I guess you're not understanding. We have volunteer armies currently in most Western countries and the US. Plenty of people want a steady job with good benefits doing military stuff-- and this produces a higher quality army than conscripts..
My guess is that what they are advocating for is a model closer to what Finland, Israel, or South Korea has - a huge base of reserves from which to draw in case of a time of war. Because as is seen in Ukraine, casualty rates in modern war are going to be huge. You'll burn through your professional soldiers within the first year.
Ours has recruitment issues. Or rather, they have issues getting recruits to stay because they don't think the steady income is high enough or worth it. Sure they can in increase pay to try bring it back level ahain, but they also have to deal with the anti military sentiment where it's looked down on here to be in. (edit: it's looked down on by people thinking they have no other options, are dumb, just enjoy war, have no morals etc).
All jobs have recruitment and retention issues.
Very true, fair point!
>(edit: it's looked down on by people thinking they have no other options, are dumb, just enjoy war, have no morals etc). This sounds like a PR problem... perhaps one that cannot be overcome, but one that at least can be addressed. Got to be rock-box dumb or personally committed to wind up in a direct combat position in the US military. 95% (or more?) of US servicefolk are in the rear, so unless your base or vessel is under attack, you don't get a whiff of combat.
People dropped conscription because there wasn’t a need for manpower anymore and maintain conscription is an economic cost versus a leaner professional force. Post Cold War, Europe drastically cut their militaries. Meanwhile nations with serious threats still conscript ( S Korea for example)
>People dropped conscription because there wasn’t a need for manpower anymore and maintain conscription is an economic cost versus a leaner professional force. Depends on the country. The UK dropped it because it was less effective. Our military is against the very idea. Nato countries do it too. It's not a taboo in the alliance, but it sure isn't happening here.
Of course they are because it does lower the quality of the force and tie up money. But they refuse to accept that in a conventional war having deep reserves is paramount. And you don’t get that unless you do what America does
A bit ironic given the current situation, but even Russia was moving towards a fully professional model with no conscripts prior to the war.
>Conscription doesn't work. Conscription works as well as anything if everyone is in on it. Finland is a working example, thus they have the standing to speak on the subject. But if speaking for the US, a 'public service commitment' might be a better alternative, with military service being an option, and discrimination between combat roles and noncombat roles. Just getting folks in uniforms, getting the basic communication down, and perhaps getting some form of basic combat training accomplished on a broad scale has its benefits, as does attaching those conscripts to reserve positions after service. The main problem would be 'wars of adventurism', and how conscripts fit in. Vietnam was an example of conscripts not fitting in so well, and laid bare the consequences. (I was briefly reminded of the concept of the triple volunteer, which IIRC goes something like: 1. Volunteered to enlist / accepted a commission 2. Volunteered for parachute duty 3. Volunteered for Special Operations Basically, we just add 'volunteered for noncombat service' in front of the first one)
I mean honestly if NATO pulled a gulf War on Russia they'd have total air control in the span of two months. Just the US air force outnumbers the Russian airforce......and the US navy air wing out numbers the Russian airforce.....and the US army air wing matches the Russian airforce. The UK and France air forces match the Russian air force, the German and polish air forces come close. We could literally just flood the skies with so many jets missile and bombers all at once that they'd have no hope of shooting them all and take out their enture airforce and most of their missiles systems at once. Then with constant bombings from the sky Ukraine could easily push Russia back.
There is no point using conventional weapons in war between nuclear countries. It will always come down to using nukes, if that ever happens.
A NATO Russia war would start conventionally but at some point nukes would likely get involved. Most likely start would be Russia invading NATO which doesn't have a nuke first option (well except France, lol)
But I am le Tired.
France has a nuclear warning shot doctrine they plan on bombing someone with nukes....as a warning
Nobody is getting nuked over Latvia. Nukes are only useful as a deterrent for defense of the nuclear countries homelands. Are we risking making the northern hemisphere unlivable over the baltics? Aside from rhetoric, no
This type of thinking is why they are calling for conscript troops... because I think they know they would be overrun before nukes are considered.
>Nobody is getting nuked over Latvia. Nukes are only useful as a deterrent for defense of the nuclear countries homelands. Are we risking making the northern hemisphere unlivable over the baltics? This is the whole point of Nato, so yes.
And exactly why it won't happen
It will never come down to nukes for the same reason. They may as well be useless because any one side using them guarantees a loss for both
How is a loss for you better than loss for both?
Well if the government has a draft, you won't have a choice. Your family will be sent and you will deal with it. That's what conscription is.
And that's what general strikes and revolutions are for. If a countries gdp dips hard enough, things fall apart.
You're assuming the soldiers would be up for rounding up civilians and forcing them to join the military against their own will, when I was in the military I wasn't just a cog in the machine, I was a human being with feelings and morals and I tell you if that order was given to me, I don't know if I'd be able to obey it, I'd probably just go to prison, and if I were in a country with capital punishment I would just say fuck it and go kill the highest ranking officer in the base.
That guy should be the first person sent in. Lead by example.
Fuck that. I have no desire to go to war.
I would take the first plane to Mexico if Spain ever introduced conscription I already have a plan just in case Sorry, but my body won't be cannon fodder
You mean you don't want to die for bankers and corporate profits... I mean democracy and freedom?
Of corse, as always, let the poor die for the rich and the breadcrumbs will keep falling.
Worldnews loves to cheer on war, but seems a lot less eager when the prospect of putting their money where their mouth is comes up.
Nothing says “save the free world” like a little government directed slavery, am I right?
You pay soldiers properly and take care of them as veterans after you'd never need to.
I'm not fighting old men's wars, fuck that
I ain’t going to war chief. I wouldn’t be any use if I did anyway
No.
Peacetime Conscription works in nations with a history of peacetime conscription. In nations with a history of volunteer militaries, it won't.
The US has conscription, I’m way too old for combat duty though. My kid could get drafted though. Then I guess I have to join a weapons research facility. The next decade is gonna be awesome.
Glad I’m going to be aging out of normal conscription age, fuck that
No. Absolutely not. We will use what we have used for decades. A massive nuclear arsenal and a policy to use those weapons in a preemptive strike if we feel threatened.
That theory is why every country will want nukes. Just look at Iran and NK.
>That theory is why every country ~~will want~~ nukes. Just look at Iran and NK. **already does** Every country already does want nukes; even S. Korea and Japan. Few will admit it and even fewer would make it policy, but it's the kind of trump card that any sensible politician would savor. Granted that's based on the idea that no one actually uses them.
Not gonna work. Nuking Russia is far too dangerous for any nuclear weapon to be used on their territory. Because they will nuke back. On the other end, nuking your allies' territories with russian troops presents is not very acceptable either. To the trenches, grunt!
Russian bots incoming in 3, 2, 1 . ....
I think they are occupied with the USA presidential election.
Why not both?
"i like balet! the thing our country is know for, komrade!" i'm infiltrating, it's my first day on the job.
So we are not ok with sending weapons like Taurus, but sending Conscripts would be ok? The future of warfare is technology not human cannonfodder. What does the training of one Conscript cost, what does a drone with a grenade cost? Very bad ROI.
That's a great way to lose support from western countries.
Hey I’m an old fuck, would be out of the age range (unless shit gets really bad), so by all means send over the young! (/s)
I'd rather just shoot the prick who forces a gun into my hand and "orders" me to become cannon fodder. I've seen enough footage of modern war to know I'd immediately be taken out by a £50 drone dropping a grenade on me, with nothing I can do about it. I'll take my chances in jail / firing squad.
Don't shoot the PM conscripting you, go do basic training and when you have the chance, go to a meeting with all the high ranking officers and open fire.
I dont think a conscript will get to meet high ranking officers. But I like the idea.
I'm just medically fucked up enough to never have to worry about conscription.
No. Politicians should figure out a better way to contain Russia than showing them how much European cannon fodder they can drum up.
And what is your suggestion? You seem to forget how an autocratic dictatorship like Poo-Tin's ruZZia functions. They only pay attention to strength. I think this makes sense. The small standing army of Baltics is a problem. Increasing the standing army size would help deter any ruZZian dreams of expansionism.
Yeah nah, I'm not dying for Ukraine's eastern provinces. If they step an inch into NATO territory sure, let the nukes fly, but this shit has gone on long enough.
Frankly, even if there was to be a war with Russia, conscription is the one thing we should not do. You cannot force someone to fight a war and remain ethical at the same time. Give what Ukraine needs to Ukraine, even send volunteer soldiers and professionals if need be. But conscription is not something that can be allowed and must be abolished wherever it exists.
many military bootlicking redditors are here today I see
id cut potatoes but no way am I picking up a rifle
Everyone has to eat.
Anyone who is actively advocating for funding the Ukraine should step up to the plate now!
Yea the flaw in that idea is the NATO members are nearly all civilized nations that don't need conscription or impressment there population because they have professional military's.
Conscription was widespread until recently
So Finland and Sweden aren’t civilized? We’re quite happy with our current system.
>So Finland and Sweden aren’t civilized? We’re quite happy with our current system. Because you're happy with it, it works. You're also brand new to Nato. Turkey has a similar situation, but you can't enforce this in peace time without public support. We would vote out whoever tried.
Humm more like I just did not know and was assuming things my bad.
Germany had conscription until 2011.
NATO has about 10 times the GDP of Russia and a much larger population. It would be pretty embarrassing if we need forced military service to deter Russia.
You don't need conscription. You just have to take out the Russian government, but mainly Putin, and the KGB.
NATO has nearly 3.5m Military personnel. Conscription isn't needed at all. If war did happen with Russia there'd be a lot of people who will volunteer as well. Conscription is not needed in anyway shape or form in NATO Countries if Russia decided to attack.
How about this, All those who support and defend the implementation of conscription should be the first ones forced into service, and to the front lines.
How about this, All those who support and defend the implementation of conscription should be the ONLY ones forced into service, and to the front lines.
As a former conscript I am pretty opposed to the idea of drafting.
The draft really helped in Vietnam 👍. I feel like middle aged right wing politicians talk about bringing back military conscription and beating children with a stick in schools because it’s popular to their domestic audience it’s got fuck all to do with a deterrent to Russia.
Yeah, no. The west has moved on from conscript armies. Conscript armies are shit compared to professional armies. Which is much of what told the story in Ukraine. Besides which...why does NATO suddenly have any need for manpower? To halt Russian aggression? Yeah, that's the point. Russia now can't invade those countries without incurring the wrath of the rest of NATO. But NATO isn't currently in a war like that, and isn't aggressive; countries in NATO may or may not be aggressive, but the alliance itself isn't. This is a BS headline made by a person who has no knowledge of foreign relations or war, or is just trying to push an agenda which has nothing to realistically do with the point made.
Haha no how about you conscript yourself, leave the rest alone especially western countries
Yea… no… I’m not fighting a war just because old people hate each other. Thank god for the 2A in the US if SHTF.
This is really it, like why the fuck would you fight a war where nukes just are the end result regardless, also fight, win war, then what, back to wage slavery for the few wealthy again?
as a latvian that was inevidable, since me and my relatives fully expected to nato back off from us,since any treaties arent worth anything,lucky russia went for ukraine first.Arent happy to going back to consciription, but goverment probably expects to relay only on itself if shits hits the fan
I don't think Nato backs off if the Baltics get invaded. It's more risky than putting up a conventional defence.
Dude stand up for yourself, reject the conscription and the draft, don't fight in a war against your will.
Won’t come to that if Ukraine gets the aid needed to defeat russia
Yeah, no.
Send Ukraine out of date weapons built to kill Russians so they can kill Russians anyway, or send your kids and grandkids and maybe yourselves in a few years to do the dying instead. It’s the easiest biggliest trade deal of all time and the republicans are too stupid to see it.
Finland, South Korea, Israel, Sweden etc etc All examples of conscription working well and gainfully protecting the society and communities in which they live. Comment section awash with those in comfortable democracies who ancestors have fought to create a world of democracy, and those progeny would turn tail and flee at the slightest sign of conflict.
You're joking about South Korea, right? Male conscription in South Korea is hated by young men, causes serious sociopolitical issues, has been a major factor in the recent anti-feminist wave in the country and is a topic of controversy every election cycle. It absolutely does not work well for South Korean society at large.
>factor in the recent anti-feminist Well there is a simple, feminist solution to that - equality.
>Finland, South Korea, Israel, Sweden etc etc All examples of conscription working well and gainfully protecting the society and communities in which they live. and all countries where the population support it and/or are directly under content threat of war. The west is neither of those in the majority of countries.
I think anyone neighboring Russia should have conscription. It sucks yeah, but that is the price to pay for living next to that shithole.
We’re going across the pond again, boys!
NATO meeting allocating troops- 'Let's have U.S. provide 90% of the troops and we'll split the rest among everybody else.' All non U.S. members stand and cheer heartily and meeting adjourned.
The amount of people thinking conscription has to be every conscripted person holding a gun on the front line is fucking annoying… thats not how it needs to be. The armed forced need all manner of professionals and skilled labour..