We had mms in germany but it was easy to get a way around it. 50% of the people were considered not to be fit for service because they didnt really need that many people anyhow.. Also you could choose to do civil service instead if you could credibly attest that you are a pacifist and have moral concerns holding a weapon. But if you get invalided out for medical reasons you didnt have to do anything and were able to save one year of sitting around doing nothing and go earlier to university instead. So basically there were only people attending military service that really wanted to do it (some people like to sit around and waste one year of your life sitting around drinking beer apparently) and people that were too stupid to do civil service or find some dumb reason to get invalided out. It was pretty easy. You just had to say you fear being bullied because of some reason ( could be anything from being gay to being insecure or depressive)
So rightfully mms was abolished because it was a joke anyways. A the moment germany is building up a professional army instead. Less manpower, but more specialized and way more professional. I think wars are more high tech nowadays where manpower isnt as crucial and on different layers for example on the internet or in the economy. So its not like a bunch of young fools running around the obstacle course would make a big difference anyhow.
MMS is needed for countries land locked to their theoretical enemies. It is the only way to get a large enough military reserve ready prior to the war.
If you don't see your enemy being near you then it is just a waste of peoples time. Unless you don't see that 1% being able to get work and keep it as a stimulus action.
In Belgium we got rid of it completely back in 1994. It's fun to hear older adults (aged 40 and above) talk about it. Some enjoyed it, others didn't. My dad spent a lot of his time being a bartender in an officer's mess. Not what I call a useful way of spending time in the army.
I don't see the need for it in Europe. The chances of the EU going to war on a scale that would require mass recruitment are rather slim. We've gone through two world wars in less than 50 years, costing the lives of tens of millions of people, we're not going to make that mistake again.
A lot of people bring up that mandatory military service is a good way of instilling discipline and workmanship ethic in young people but I don't agree. It all depends on how you have been brought up by your parents, and by the people you are surrounded with. People who are used to being lazy will find ways to be lazy, even in the army, and if they aren't being lazy, they will just do every single job so half-assedly that it becomes frustrating for the rest of the group.
On April 02 2013 06:34 maartendq wrote: In Belgium we got rid of it completely back in 1994. It's fun to hear older adults (aged 40 and above) talk about it. Some enjoyed it, others didn't. My dad spent a lot of his time being a bartender in an officer's mess. Not what I call a useful way of spending time in the army.
I don't see the need for it in Europe. The chances of the EU going to war on a scale that would require mass recruitment are rather slim. We've gone through two world wars in less than 50 years, costing the lives of tens of millions of people, we're not going to make that mistake again.
If only the act of losing men in the past actually prevented wars from happening in the future....
I agree that the draft is bad--but I am not hopeful that "losing lots of men in WW2" will prevent war from happening in the future.
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
If the guy trying to start a war could have his son killed too he might think twice about starting shit.
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
If the guy trying to start a war could have his son killed too he might think twice about starting shit.
Are you suggesting that political appointees are required to have at least one of their children in military service in order to curb any feelings of going off to war?
On April 02 2013 06:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: In general I don't believe it's a very good idea, seems sort of silly and archaic. However, if as a country we're going to go around war mongering then I fully believe in it. I mean if the people at the top are going to start shit with other people their children should be just as likely to die for it. It shouldn't just be the poorer folks who have to pay the price IMO.
It will always be the poor folks whose kids fight in wars. At least in the current setup they can make that choice for themselves.
If the guy trying to start a war could have his son killed too he might think twice about starting shit.
As if anyone in that position of power has to worry about such a thing.
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, it is still mandatory in Finland to do the service. The presumption is that you do the military service, you have appeal to your "moral" or "ethical" views to do the civil service. Even though you meet a lot dumb people in the service, it is still an universal experience for the men in the nation. It does not matter if you are a son of a CEO or a blue-collar working man, you still do the service and there's no way out of it. It is also a fun experience to be just a part of the machine and nobody giving a damn about your individual views. And in the times of equality, especially in the Nordic nations, women should also do the service. It is not so though.
Of course, Finland has a quite unique situation in Europe with a lot of border with Russia. History tells that the threat has always come from the east. The military defensive doctrine in Finland is that we make the possible attack by Russia so expensive for them so it is not worthwhile. We need the +200,000 men armed with assault rifles and RPGs to make the invasion extremely difficult.
The idea that "world is not so crazy anymore" is just wishful thinking. They also thought that after WW1 because it was the bloodiest so far. You will always get new crazy people in the world who are in charge and decide to go on a rampage. Usually there is a war going on somewhere in the world. Now the prime example is Syria.
And lastly here's a small video by a Finnish sketch group:
On April 02 2013 06:34 maartendq wrote: In Belgium we got rid of it completely back in 1994. It's fun to hear older adults (aged 40 and above) talk about it. Some enjoyed it, others didn't. My dad spent a lot of his time being a bartender in an officer's mess. Not what I call a useful way of spending time in the army.
I don't see the need for it in Europe. The chances of the EU going to war on a scale that would require mass recruitment are rather slim. We've gone through two world wars in less than 50 years, costing the lives of tens of millions of people, we're not going to make that mistake again.
If only the act of losing men in the past actually prevented wars from happening in the future....
I agree that the draft is bad--but I am not hopeful that "losing lots of men in WW2" will prevent war from happening in the future.
It will probably prevent it from happening again in Europe. Personally, I will never take up arms to defend any cause. I'm strongly convince that the only thing violence entails is more violence and hate.
Still, the sad reality is indeed that wars will always happen and that innocent people will suffer because of them.
Hookster, that's a very nice quote, but the content of it is so false. Throughout it's 1300 years of history, the Roman empire was never able to enlist more than 1% of its population at any given time. What it did have, however, was an army of highly trained professionals that kicked the crap out of any hastily conscripted army. I doubt that the Romans would have had as many difficulties as they did if every citizen had actually been a soldier. Most of the Roman armies, especially near the end of the Empire, consisted of Auxiliary troops, basically legions of foreign mercenaries.
The only civilisation that managed to draft a ridiculously huge part of its population were the Chinese during the Warring States and Spring and Autumn Periods.
Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
lol
I'm not a fan of it myself but calling it slavery just means you don't really understand its purpose.
Usually if you have a strong nation, you have good defence willingness. In Finland that is around 80%, which is very high. If it was not mandatory, everybody would not go there. Why? Because when you are 18-20 you are still a kid and you do stupid things. After the service you have good memories about it. Also, sometimes in life you have to do something which is not fun. Get over it.
Edit: and for the conscription picture: it is not the same everywhere. De jure it is "mandatory" in many nations, but rich people buy their way out of it. For example, in México (where I live atm) you can just bribe the officials to skip the service.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
or the people deserve it to be conquored, and be shown the true meaning of slavery.
No man of honor resists the call to arms. The call of duty \m/
On April 02 2013 06:59 JethroSC wrote: Drafts might be good, depending on the situation. But making it males-only is just sexist.
I didn't know this discussion was about gender constitution? My bad, I thought it was a philosophical discussion on the ethics and validity of conscription.
On April 02 2013 06:54 cozenage wrote: Forcing work from people under threat of imprisonment or death? Let's call it what it is: Slavery.
If you aren't comfortable with that strong word despite its accuracy, perhaps your could try words like "extortion" or "involuntary servitude."
No matter what you call it, it is immoral, and should never be tolerated in a free society. If the nation is at true risk and the people are not willing to volunteer to defend it, then perhaps the nation is not worth saving in the first place.
lol
I'm not a fan of it myself but calling it slavery just means you don't really understand its purpose.
The purpose is to force people to work against their will. Just because you attach niceties such as "teaching discipline or civic responsibility" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the act.
If you are not a soldier by your spirit and mind-set, you are sentenced to get overrun by the government and the policy makers. The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8y5ct4n.png)
