EPTIs Mandatory Military Enlistment still needed? - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Magic_Mike
United States542 Posts
| ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On April 03 2013 01:20 Rash wrote: On the positive side, I think it's an institutionalized way to make sure everybody knows the value of hard work, of camaraderie and of dealing with hard situations. For some it's also their first experience outside the comfort of a protective enviroment like school, family, etc. On the negative side, it's true that many of these values get associated with foolish nationalism, in which the falacy of: "Because it's hard work and I grew as a person by doing it, the institution that forced me into it must live by those values", which of course isn't. I want to say it's a way to ensure at least once in a person's life, specially as brand new adults, we understand/experience the above values. It's not the best one, and its effectiveness varies from person to person, but since your ability to get a job highly depends on it, it's maybe the best "massive" way for a government to ensure that growing step is taken (aside from all the other admin/military benefits). Since governments have to deal with HUGE ammounts of ppl, they aim for the standard, without considering the tails of the distribution. You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens. Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing? | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Something everyone should want to do when really needed. Fighting all these bogus wars of this day and age however are not... most of them are based on greed, who would want to risk his life for that? | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On April 02 2013 06:48 Hookster wrote: "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: Syria isn't Europe. But yes, the Finnish situation, just like the Israeli situation, do have very strong arguments for mandatory military service. The same cannot be said for most first world countries though. Even in Sweden (which shares the same threat of a potential looming Russian invasion, albeit one country over) we dropped mandatory military service a good while ago. Our military is only meant to slow down an invasion, not actually stop it. We couldn't fight a Russian invasion off however hard we tried. So we delay, and wait for aid. And that's what our very small military is for these days. That, and international peace keeping efforts. And I'm more than fine with that. If the potential threats towards Sweden increases for some reason in the future then sure, ramp up mandatory military service again. There's a plan to get Sweden ready for war (the more time we have the more combat ready we will be) - but as it is we're not really under threat from anyone and pretending we are would just create potential mistrust issues with our neighbours and, perhaps more likely, waste a lot of money and people's time. | ||
|
Rash
Mexico45 Posts
On April 03 2013 02:00 DreamChaser wrote: You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens. Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing? Phew! Big question indeed. I don't think it's the gov's responsibility to do so, but rather parenting (after all, the government should reflect society's values, not the other way around). However I think in the gov's eyes it's not a matter of responsibility, but convenience, specially if sided with nationalistic thoughts. Maybe that could explain both why the Nazis made such a mess, and also why the country was able to reconstruct itself twice in 50 years!. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 03 2013 02:00 DreamChaser wrote: You make a great point here and i want to put up a sort of moral question, at what point is it the responsibility of the government to install "values" on their citizens. Yes its great to install hard work ethics and such but on the very far spectrum did the Nazi's not do the same thing? different countries do it differently. The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking. The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence. Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
|
bohus
11 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2674 Posts
It teaches you to work in a group under orders. This seems immensely important since a lot of young kids seem to think they are special little snowflakes that everyone have to bend over too. In the real world it does NOT work like that and it's annoying as hell to get people to understand it. People can say what they want about respecting authority but in human society it's a key skill to have even if you hate it. It teaches you the value of being in time, keeping tidy and doing your fucking job, sometimes with people you HATE. It also exposes you to completely different people across the spectrum of society. This means you get to know people outside your comfort zone and understand where they are coming from. Finally it offers some very unpleasant experiences. This is a huge boon in itself. If your about to do something unpleasant it's good to remember that time when you did something x10 as bad. Hotell is shitty with roaches? Ruins my gf's vacation. Me, I'm glad it's not a pinetree in a forrest with ~0 degree temperature and rain. Just a matter of perspective. | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
These days a group of allies with small armies are much more powerful than a nation with a huge army. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On April 02 2013 23:56 DERPDERP wrote: If 90% of a nations male citizens (18-64yo), have some kind of basic military training, its a nightmare from a potential occupiers perspective; Everyone is a potential freedom fighter. I wouldn't say its any more useless now than it used to be. This is when infinite amounts of Chemical weapons and napalm are used, while the local soldiers are used as fodder. See Vietnam War. Very effective. On April 03 2013 02:04 HellRoxYa wrote: Syria isn't Europe. But yes, the Finnish situation, just like the Israeli situation, do have very strong arguments for mandatory military service. The same cannot be said for most first world countries though. Even in Sweden (which shares the same threat of a potential looming Russian invasion, albeit one country over) we dropped mandatory military service a good while ago. Our military is only meant to slow down an invasion, not actually stop it. We couldn't fight a Russian invasion off however hard we tried. So we delay, and wait for aid. And that's what our very small military is for these days. That, and international peace keeping efforts. And I'm more than fine with that. If the potential threats towards Sweden increases for some reason in the future then sure, ramp up mandatory military service again. There's a plan to get Sweden ready for war (the more time we have the more combat ready we will be) - but as it is we're not really under threat from anyone and pretending we are would just create potential mistrust issues with our neighbours and, perhaps more likely, waste a lot of money and people's time. Man, you guys are almost as bad as Cold War USA when it comes to conspiracy theories about Russian invasion. I'm 100% sure the Russians have absolutely no intent of such a thing. The Vikings are long gone, so you're right about not being able to put up a fight. If in fact the Russians were as conquest-happy as you seem to imply, Stockholm would be a stock pile of spent Russian munitions while I'm having my morning tea tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, the Russians have no such intent of doing such a thing, nor would it bring them any value at all... | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 03 2013 03:31 Shiori wrote: Absolutely not. I consider war to be the worst sort of immorality; forcing citizens to partake in it against their will is therefore immoral. The requirements of land ownership is being able to keep your land. When I buy a house, and people try to break in, I call the cops. When I live in a country, and people try to break in, I call the military. Being a cop is not mandatory--neither should being in the army. | ||
|
waylander_
United States82 Posts
On April 03 2013 04:00 iTzSnypah wrote: Conscription is useless. We are well past the age of conquest. These days a group of allies with small armies are much more powerful than a nation with a huge army. huh? what group of allies with small armies could dream of taking on the US Military? | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
I have no quarrel with people learning life lessons about cooperation in the context of caring for the people in your own country. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On April 03 2013 04:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: This is when infinite amounts of Chemical weapons and napalm are used, while the local soldiers are used as fodder. See Vietnam War. Very effective. Man, you guys are almost as bad as Cold War USA when it comes to conspiracy theories about Russian invasion. I'm 100% sure the Russians have absolutely no intent of such a thing. The Vikings are long gone, so you're right about not being able to put up a fight. If in fact the Russians were as conquest-happy as you seem to imply, Stockholm would be a stock pile of spent Russian munitions while I'm having my morning tea tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, the Russians have no such intent of doing such a thing, nor would it bring them any value at all... Yes, they would indeed overrun most of our major cities. And then it'd be very costly to sustain that because taking the countryside is a whole other issue all together. And that's the entire point, deterrent. I never implied they were planning an invasion, but it's the only threat that exists on any level and is worth planning for and in the past it was at the very least seen as a real threat (See your point about Cold War US). My entire point was that we've dismantled our military because no real threats exist and the only thing we're planning against would be a sudden resurgance of Russian aggression for whatever reason - and even then we only plan to delay as best we can. On April 03 2013 04:05 waylander_ wrote: huh? what group of allies with small armies could dream of taking on the US Military? I guess you're one of those people who think Iraq was a very successful war? How about Vietnam? There's a point to be made here. Regardless, "wars" between first world countries are fought by banks and governments playing the economical game. Real wars are too expensive and even small ones (See Afghanistan and Iraq) are generally too costly today in both economical and political terms. | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 03 2013 04:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Man, you guys are almost as bad as Cold War USA when it comes to conspiracy theories about Russian invasion. I'm 100% sure the Russians have absolutely no intent of such a thing. The Vikings are long gone, so you're right about not being able to put up a fight. If in fact the Russians were as conquest-happy as you seem to imply, Stockholm would be a stock pile of spent Russian munitions while I'm having my morning tea tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, the Russians have no such intent of doing such a thing, nor would it bring them any value at all... You're absolutely right in that Russia is not a relevant military threat to any Nordic country. In fact, Russia is the highest growing exporting market in Finland, there's plenty of tourism going both ways and Russia represents great economic opportunity for Nordic corporations the way US corporations have benefited from expanding to europe. The thing is, Russia is the only geologically relevant country that could pose a significant military threat unassisted to the European countries that neighbor it. Northern Europe is geologically very isolated. Staging an invasion via massive landing like normandy is too expensive and not even possible for most countries, and the only way by land to Scandinavia is through Russia and Finland. That means that it's only really possible to stage an invasion in the Nordic countries by having a massive navy or a massive army and the blessing of Russia to roll right through to the border. That excludes hypothetical potential attacks by pretty much every other country except for Russia and the U.S. Further, Norway is a NATO member, which means that the only way the U.S. could possibly stage an invasion to Scandinavia is through the Danish straits, or through Norway. There's not enough space in the Danish straits for a navy, and Norway and Sweden share a very strong cultural bond that would make it unlikely that Norway would agree to an invasion in the first place. That pretty much rules out any hypothetical attacks by the U.S, leaving Russia as the only country in the world with the capability of presenting an actual military threat to Northern Europe outside of nuclear arms. Now Russia has absolutely no cause whatsoever for a conflict with the Nordics, but it does have the capability to do so if it wanted. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Russia has any plans of being a military threat for Nordics, but I do agree that if you are going to have armed forces at all, it makes sense to model them after responding to your only potential military threat. If that means that the only way we can afford to do so is conscription, then that's what we have to do. The entire purpose is to present a deterrent, and to make a hypothetical attack so costly that it's not worth it. It's not like people in America leave their doors open for the night and invite strangers to come take all their hard earned stuff away from them either. You have a lock as a deterrent to keep people outside your house, but if someone really wants to break in you can't prevent that with a lock. I don't think any Finnish national expects to one day find themselves being at war with Russia, and that goes for all the other Nordics as well. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
[B] huh? what group of allies with small armies could dream of taking on the US Military?[/QUOTE] I guess you're one of those people who think Iraq was a very successful war? How about Vietnam? There's a point to be made here. Regardless, "wars" between first world countries are fought by banks and governments playing the economical game. Real wars are too expensive and even small ones (See Afghanistan and Iraq) are generally too costly today in both economical and political terms.[/QUOTE] Iraq and Vietnam was a very successful "war" it was the occupation part that sucked. The problem with wars outside your soil is that "winning" it requires that people stop hating you once you've killed off their army. Beating Iraq's army was EASY. Trying to get all of iraq to be cool with our invasion--not so much. No army on earth can beat the US army right now in a straight up fight. But no nation on earth will ever be "oh you beat our army, I guess we love you now." It's hard enough to get people to enjoy saying gg after losing a game of sc2--try getting a nation to respect us after we shove the military industrial complex up their complex. | ||
|
SheepleArePeopleToo
Sweden73 Posts
On April 03 2013 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: different countries do it differently. The US doesn't have conscription--but it does spend a lot of media and political efforts to demonize welfare programs and to encourage "tie your own bootstraps" thinking. The Nazis went to the Nth degree in instilling culture to its people, but the Bolshevik revolution actually went the opposite route of having the royalty and government officials killed off to free the people of their influence. Somewhere between Nazi propaganda and Military revolution would be a nice in between. What do you mean? Majority of americans think it's better to live off welfare and the own bootstraps thing are being demonized. This isn't the 50s anymore. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 03 2013 06:02 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote: What do you mean? Majority of americans think it's better to live off welfare and the own bootstraps thing are being demonized. This isn't the 50s anymore. I guess you missed the part where I said "media and political efforts" Nations who conscript are not filled with pro war nuts much like the US with Fox News is not filled with conservative bigots. | ||
| ||
