War Czar Considers Draft.

[Vympel]

.(And the Soviet Union's army? And where did they fare so well that they merit inclusion?)

Well, World War Two for one.

But anyway, it's incorrect to blanket denounce conscription-based armies as being notorious for "cowardice, mental problems, and discipline problems".

(in terms of the red army, mental and discipline problems were definitely a bug issue, and it only got worse after the USSR fell in the Russian Army, hence the move to a professional force, don't get me wrong)

ie. The elite units of the Soviet military - the VDV (the paratroopers), Naval Infantry, and Spetsnaz - all conscripts, just like any other serviceman. This in no way affected their esprit de corps or their various acts of valor in numerous actions. That's even in the absolute doldrums of the 1990s (A VDV company on Hill 776 in 2000, actually, which was killed almost to a man without surrender).

However, that's not to say conscription is viable or desireable, I imagine the conscripts in the more elite arms of the Soviet military were forged into units with high esprit de corps and combat readiness despite, not because of, conscription. I'll think about it some more later.

[SirNitram]

.(And the Soviet Union's army? And where did they fare so well that they merit inclusion?)

Well, World War Two for one.

But anyway, it's incorrect to blanket denounce conscription-based armies as being notorious for "cowardice, mental problems, and discipline problems".

ie. The elite units of the Soviet military - the VDV (the paratroopers), Naval Infantry, and Spetsnaz - all conscripts, just like any other serviceman. This in no way affected their esprit de corps or their various acts of valor in numerous actions. That's even in the absolute doldrums of the 1990s (A VDV company on Hill 776 in 2000, actually, which was killed almost to a man without surrender).

However, that's not to say conscription is viable or desireable, I imagine the conscripts in the more elite arms of the Soviet military were forged into units with high esprit de corps and combat readiness despite, not because of, conscription. I'll think about it some more later.

Indeed; as you said, these were the elites. One does not measure the state of the British Military based on observations of the SAS.

[chitoryu12]

Considering doing so would serve no purpose other than to satisfy your frivolous and irrelevant demand, yes, I would mind. Instead, I pose you this question (one that's actually relevant): "Why would conscripts get less training than volunteers?" It's strange how people seem to equate conscripts with the Red Army in the midst of Operation Barbarossa, and not, for example, the United States Army in every war conscription was used.

Sorry, but you have the Burden of Proof. Aside from the fact that I never said shit about how conscripts get less training than volunteers, if somone asks you to prove your statement, you prove it. You don't say, "This is too frivolous for me! I shall not answer! Instead, you shall answer me!" Either prove that conscripted troops are far better than volunteer troops, or shut the fuck up.

[DrMckay]

Weight of numbers

There are usually more conscripted troops available to deploy then volunteer soldiers.

As a certian Russian General Secretary once said:

"Quantity has a quality all of its own."

[Coyote]

In other words, it is because you say it is. You're a moron.

Hey guess what: military service is evil. Therefore, you are evil. How do I know this? I just say so! There, I just made an argument 100% as good as yours. Actually even better, because I included an exclamation mark.

Now you're just drifting into the downright bizarre out of sheer choler.

[Coyote]

And what makes you think that the state has any right to ask anything of us beyond taxes and obeying the law? The state isn't a person who's feelings will be slighted if you don't reward him/her for their good behaviour. It's merely a mechanism that we built because it's necessary in order for societies beyond a certain size to function. The state, as an entity, has no more right to ask anything of us than the computer you're typing on or the furnace you use to heat your home. You give it the fuel and maintenance it needs to do the job we built it for, no more, no less.

People band into societies for more than just resource pooling. It is also for mutual protection against outside threats. Every so often, the chief knocks on your hut and passes the spear.

For both you and Stark, I again want to remind you that I am not saying that people's only choices are to fight & die. There's conscientious objector status based on moral reasoning against war in general or a war in particular; ie, the motives behind it, or accepting punishment --perhaps as a means to call attention to the situation.

There's actually another option-- if there's a draft, and you know they'll come for you sooner or later, you can pre-empt them and volunteer for a position you know will be non-combatant. For example, for Iraq I'd say join the Navy and get trained to do something only on ships. If you get rotated to the war zone at all, you'll while away time in the Persian Gulf so far from the action you'll be a CNN veteran just like everyone else back home.

[Dargos]

I’ve been avoiding this thread because it seems to be a lit powder keg in the making, but now I will break my silence.

As pointed out in this thread, in a democratic country, a government is there to serve the people and not the other way around. That is, in my opinion, an oversimplification.

As a citizen of a democratic country you enjoy rights and privileges as allowed by the governing laws of your country. With those rights and privileges come certain responsibilities, such as voting, obeying laws, paying taxes, protecting your and your fellow citizen’s rights, and depending on the laws of the land, involuntarily serving the state in times of need.

As someone enjoying being a member of a society you also have to help bare the costs of that society. So it’s pretty much a two edged sword.

Now, let me put my two cents in about the “ethical question”. Is it ethical to “dodge” the draft? I would have to say yes.

If a person has a problem with serving in the military there usualy legal ways of avoiding it. If, under the rules and laws of the land, these problems do not justify the avoidance of duty. You have a personal (but not legal) right to avoid it. But with that avoidance comes with the penalty of no longer being a member of society and thereby forfit rights and privleges. ( Jail or perhaps even stripping of citizenship. I've heard but not verified that some countrys will do that)



Let’s look at a couple of possible benefits and negative side effects of the peace time draft.

Training. A pool of trained individuals that could be called up in emergencies and used with a little refresher training. That, in my opinion, is the strongest argument for involuntary conscription.

Personnel diversity. A properly managed draft would draw upon a cross section from the population. People from all walks of life would be “forced” to work together.

Perhaps this could be useful to help improve social problems. Showing that the “other side” is just as normal them, and they had to do the same as everyone else. (In my opinion I think it would have the opposite effect as people will naturally gravitate to others of their own “caste” causing social problems within the military.)

Lower cost. A conscript military would be cheaper to run. You would only have to have a core professional military to cover the technical and “important areas”.

The rank and file majority would be the worker bees who would not be paid as well (if at all in some cases in the world) and would only need the basics of food, shelter and medical care.

The downside to this is that months or years of service amongst the most fit could subtract from the productivity of the economy. Draft assignments could disrupt everyday activity and lead to possibly greater economic shock as skilled workers or even masses of unskilled workers are removed from work pool.

Those are just a couple and by far not all arguments for or against.


In my opinion, the United States does not need a draft at this time, but eventually, I think it will happen.

I think I’ve bored you all enough now.

[PainRack]

Lower cost. A conscript military would be cheaper to run. You would only have to have a core professional military to cover the technical and “important areas”.

The rank and file majority would be the worker bees who would not be paid as well (if at all in some cases in the world) and would only need the basics of food, shelter and medical care.

The downside to this is that months or years of service amongst the most fit could subtract from the productivity of the economy. Draft assignments could disrupt everyday activity and lead to possibly greater economic shock as skilled workers or even masses of unskilled workers are removed from work pool.

Just a nitpick. A conscript military would be more expensive to run eventually. While they would be paid less than a volunteer force, they're still going to consume more food, more medical resources, more laundry and all the other sundry costs of living.... Unless you opt for a smaller military, one that could be met by volunteers.

[Medic]

Lower cost. A conscript military would be cheaper to run. You would only have to have a core professional military to cover the technical and “important areas”.

The rank and file majority would be the worker bees who would not be paid as well (if at all in some cases in the world) and would only need the basics of food, shelter and medical care.

The downside to this is that months or years of service amongst the most fit could subtract from the productivity of the economy. Draft assignments could disrupt everyday activity and lead to possibly greater economic shock as skilled workers or even masses of unskilled workers are removed from work pool.

Just a nitpick. A conscript military would be more expensive to run eventually. While they would be paid less than a volunteer force, they're still going to consume more food, more medical resources, more laundry and all the other sundry costs of living.... Unless you opt for a smaller military, one that could be met by volunteers.

On the other hand, all sorts of little perks we do have in the US Armed Forces might very well go out the window in a conscript Army. Post stabilisation for example would probably go into high gear. The Army would get you for it's 2-4 years madatory (whatever a conscript's time would be) and you'd be at one place the whole time. No moving between CONUS and OCONUS or even bouncing around just CONUS. Guys sent to Korea? Hardship duty location though it may be, you could expect to serve their your entire time, not the normal 1 year amount. Ditto with Germany and it's normal 2 year limit. (IIRC) That's a lot of money they're not spending constantly shuffling people around. $thousand bonuses would probably go out the window for 1st time enlistees but retained only for re-up (re-enlistment).

As far as supplying all these guys, buying in bulk will keep price-per-piece-of-equipment down and probably in the long run better prepare us to sustain combat operations in any long war, though yes, it will be overall more expensive. Dargos noted the most important advantage, having a pool of manpower ready to be tapped in any instance. (that's good in and of itself WRT readiness especially for the likes of Israel and S. Korea and in particular the latter cause of the nature of the threat from N. Korea)

That's just a broad view of a few things that a conscripted US military might likely entail. Actually for us that already joined, it's pretty bleak. Promotion too would become more difficult because most slots in most jobs across the board would be at or over strength. There's not this manpower crunch that drives promotions faster and towards younger servicemembers. (though that would only immediately effect the lower enlisted, it would catch up over time) I think initial entry training get tougher cause with a vast pool of manpower to be tapped it seems you can afford to set higher standards; whoever washes out can be replaced and the process is indefinite. As for the merit of making it softer, I can't fathom it, anyone seriously annoyed at being drafted likely didn't serve already and won't have a basis of comparison and furthermore would be pissed at the idea of being there in the 1st place, not that it is so much stricter.

Anyway, that's all speculative but not unreasonable. As far as the drawbacks one especially seems to be if we did this that always-there manpower, well, we could fight 2 wars at the same time in different theaters. So if that is an inhibition to invading, say, Iran, it'll go out the window. It's at this point I point out if you don't care for interventionist world policing, you can vote accordingly and then either flaunt the law or obey it.

[Coyote]

But that's full-time, regular peacetime conscription-- I'm on the understanding that we're talking about a wartime draft, and if it is ethical or not for the state to resort to such a thing. Does the citizen have an obligation to the state in such a circumstance?

As far as peacetime conscription, would society be better served by automatic conscription into the Reserves or National Guard, forgoing full-time duty alltogether, and serving as a "ready pool" from the get-go?

[Coyote]

One of the few wars where we like to think things were pretty black-and-white, though, was World War Two and that was fought with a draft army. But that war is fading from living memory, and we are left instead with living memory of Vietnam, and the perception that brings with it.

More importantly, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion, in which most people have acknowledged that one should fight if one's country is actually in danger of being destroyed or overrun.

But in regards to WW2, the USA was not actually in any danger-- except in the abstract sense. We could have sat back and let the other nations absorb Axis fury and come out unscathed, and just sold stuff. Roosevelt recognised how corrupt these regimes were and was willing to commit troops to stop them. But in reality, it could be argued that it was unnecessary, even stupidly wasteful from an amoral bean-counting perspective.

You haven't shown that it's unethical for ANY reason, regardless of what that reason is....you haven't shown it to be an ethical responsibility yet, fucktard. Your argument is nothing more than circular logic: it's unethical because it's a responsibility, and it's a responsibility because ... you say so?

The provisions of the US government at its founding state that the Government is to "provide for the common defense". Now, most people get wrapped up in the "promote the general welfare" and forget about the defense part. They like the "general welfare" part because that means the government is there to provide for them. Great!

But when it comes time to "provide for the common defense", unless you think that soldiers are conveniently gown in vats somewhere, that means the same government that promotes the general welfare must, from time to time, levy troops to defend that welfare.

Unlike most regimes, the US government does allow for people to avoid this responsibility by declaring oneself morally opposed to war, ie, conscientious objector. So there is an established escape hatch provided for people who do not wish to fight.

So masses of people who enjoy "the general welfare" of the government can, according to the established contract of that governemnt and its citizens, be drafted into "the common defense" of that welfare. Since another declared principle in that document is that "all men are created equal" then no person has a right to assume that his comfort or even his life is any more sacred, special, or important than anyone else's.

[TC Pilot]

Solving manpower problem means having more soldiers. This means the military budget must now have less per-capita for training and equipment. Again. It's math. I would suggest you learn it.

The notion that leaders, particularly political ones, would rather send sub-standard soldiers into combat and increase body counts than increase military budget is indeed a curious one.

It's also curious that a country that has trained conscripts and volunteers equally in every instance drafts were implemented would suddenly ignore that precedent.

Perhaps you should read some history; conscript armies are notorious in this modern age for their cowardice, mental problems, and discipline problems.

You have apparently never studied World War I, II, or the Vietnam War.

Indeed. That would be the matter of 'less motivation' and of course, you have to have less training train, because the service term has to be less. Otherwise the economy can't handle so many people gone.

And the basis of this claim? It's certainly not in every other time the United States has used conscription.

It's unsurprising you reference so many older ones, really.

Indeed. The Cold War is so ancient.

(And the Soviet Union's army? And where did they fare so well that they merit inclusion?)

Since you have no knowledge of World War II, perhaps you missed the part where it was the most powerful fighting force on the entire planet up until the general disintegration of the country.

Actually, it's quite logical to, since the chances of getting a draft passed that would keep in Draftees for over a decade is about nil. To anyone with a basic, rudimentary grasp of reality.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact we are considering a hypothetical situation the chances of which occuring are also nil.

Indeed; as you said, these were the elites.

And conscripts. Isn't it odd that there are varying levels of quality amongst conscripts? It's almost as if they have better training and weapons.

Sorry, but you have the Burden of Proof. Aside from the fact that I never said shit about how conscripts get less training than volunteers, if somone asks you to prove your statement, you prove it. You don't say, "This is too frivolous for me! I shall not answer! Instead, you shall answer me!" Either prove that conscripted troops are far better than volunteer troops, or shut the fuck up

Are you really so obtuse, or is it just an act to bolster your reputation around here?

My argument is not that conscripts recieve more training than volunteers, rather that the method an army obtains manpower (either conscription or recruitment) is not the fundamental determinant for the quality of an army.

Since you are an idiot, I admit I'm not surprised the obvious fact your demand for proof is completely irrelevant and a waste of time eluded you. And odds are even this will not deter you from pestering me further; the Waffen SS divisions, widely regarded as elite military units, began training conscripts in 1943.

[SirNitram]

Solving manpower problem means having more soldiers. This means the military budget must now have less per-capita for training and equipment. Again. It's math. I would suggest you learn it.

The notion that leaders, particularly political ones, would rather send sub-standard soldiers into combat and increase body counts than increase military budget is indeed a curious one.

Observation of history. The military became better on a per-capita basis when it was volunteer-only, as opposed to relying on numbers.

It's also curious that a country that has trained conscripts and volunteers equally in every instance drafts were implemented would suddenly ignore that precedent.

I'm not saying they were different at the time of both having conscripts and volunteers, but the difference between training when there was a draft and when there wasn't.

I'm quite surprised you are feigning this level of stupidity. Think carefully: Where do you get the extra instructors?

Perhaps you should read some history; conscript armies are notorious in this modern age for their cowardice, mental problems, and discipline problems.

You have apparently never studied World War I, II, or the Vietnam War.

I would consider fragging and the suicide rate in Vietnam to be indicative of my point, actually.

Indeed. That would be the matter of 'less motivation' and of course, you have to have less training train, because the service term has to be less. Otherwise the economy can't handle so many people gone.

And the basis of this claim? It's certainly not in every other time the United States has used conscription.

How curious. Are you saying there wasn't a sudden move to get women into men's jobs in WWII to take up the slack? Of course, we lack that untapped resource now...

Your professed knowledge of history keeps failing you.

It's unsurprising you reference so many older ones, really.

Indeed. The Cold War is so ancient.

Are you going to be providing any evidence as you're required to, boy, or are you going to continue these silly rhetorical comments, dodges, and lies?

(And the Soviet Union's army? And where did they fare so well that they merit inclusion?)

Since you have no knowledge of World War II, perhaps you missed the part where it was the most powerful fighting force on the entire planet up until the general disintegration of the country.

Ah yes, I have no knowledge of WWII. The Soviet economy was chugging along so well under it's conscription, it didn't need any aid! Oh wait.. Well, it certainly wasn't using sheer numbers! Oh, wait...

Actually, it's quite logical to, since the chances of getting a draft passed that would keep in Draftees for over a decade is about nil. To anyone with a basic, rudimentary grasp of reality.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact we are considering a hypothetical situation the chances of which occuring are also nil.

Not nil, merely very, very low unless we face a situation unexpected.

Here's an obvious difference between you and me: I'm not a retard who debates based on things that will never happen. I don't debate what would happen if Bush turned out to be a Dalek. I don't debate what would happen if a man went back to the Confederacy with everything he needed to give that nation the ability to produce AK-47's. I don't pretend to have some high ground based on instituting a draft with no loss anywhere; a purely ridiculous statement, and with decade-long conscriptions to boot!

Indeed; as you said, these were the elites.

And conscripts. Isn't it odd that there are varying levels of quality amongst conscripts? It's almost as if they have better training and weapons.

How cute! You snipped the part which disproves your claim!

Now, boy, you evaded DR6 once already, pretending it was unnecessary. Your second strike has been going through this without anything to back up your assertions(There were no discipline or mental problems in Vietnam! Honest!). Now you're on your third. Please. Continue to refuse to support your claims.

[chitoryu12]

Are you really so obtuse, or is it just an act to bolster your reputation around here?

You contradict yourself. If I was trying to bolster my reputation, then why would I be so OBVIOUSLY wrong?

My argument is not that conscripts recieve more training than volunteers, rather that the method an army obtains manpower (either conscription or recruitment) is not the fundamental determinant for the quality of an army.

So why the fuck did you say "A volunteer with a day's training is inferior to a conscript with a year's training"? If your arguement has nothing to do with levels of training, then why bring it up to deter an arguement that had nothing to do with training?

Since you are an idiot, I admit I'm not surprised the obvious fact your demand for proof is completely irrelevant and a waste of time eluded you. And odds are even this will not deter you from pestering me further;

So you still don't provide proof for your statement? Then that's as good a concession as any.

the Waffen SS divisions, widely regarded as elite military units, began training conscripts in 1943.

And the training was extremely tough and high-quality. And unlike standard divisions, the Waffen SS usually picked from the people who most followed their ideals. They didn't just grab up random people, like modern conscription, nor did they require mandatory military service, like the Romans.

[Zwinmar]

I’ve been avoiding this thread because it seems to be a lit powder keg in the making, but now I will break my silence.

As pointed out in this thread, in a democratic country, a government is there to serve the people and not the other way around. That is, in my opinion, an oversimplification.

As a citizen of a democratic country you enjoy rights and privileges as allowed by the governing laws of your country. With those rights and privileges come certain responsibilities, such as voting, obeying laws, paying taxes, protecting your and your fellow citizen’s rights, and depending on the laws of the land, involuntarily serving the state in times of need.

As someone enjoying being a member of a society you also have to help bare the costs of that society. So it’s pretty much a two edged sword.

Now, let me put my two cents in about the “ethical question”. Is it ethical to “dodge” the draft? I would have to say yes.

If a person has a problem with serving in the military there usualy legal ways of avoiding it. If, under the rules and laws of the land, these problems do not justify the avoidance of duty. You have a personal (but not legal) right to avoid it. But with that avoidance comes with the penalty of no longer being a member of society and thereby forfit rights and privleges. ( Jail or perhaps even stripping of citizenship. I've heard but not verified that some countrys will do that)



Let’s look at a couple of possible benefits and negative side effects of the peace time draft.

Training. A pool of trained individuals that could be called up in emergencies and used with a little refresher training. That, in my opinion, is the strongest argument for involuntary conscription.

Personnel diversity. A properly managed draft would draw upon a cross section from the population. People from all walks of life would be “forced” to work together.

Perhaps this could be useful to help improve social problems. Showing that the “other side” is just as normal them, and they had to do the same as everyone else. (In my opinion I think it would have the opposite effect as people will naturally gravitate to others of their own “caste” causing social problems within the military.)

Lower cost. A conscript military would be cheaper to run. You would only have to have a core professional military to cover the technical and “important areas”.

The rank and file majority would be the worker bees who would not be paid as well (if at all in some cases in the world) and would only need the basics of food, shelter and medical care.

The downside to this is that months or years of service amongst the most fit could subtract from the productivity of the economy. Draft assignments could disrupt everyday activity and lead to possibly greater economic shock as skilled workers or even masses of unskilled workers are removed from work pool.

Those are just a couple and by far not all arguments for or against.


In my opinion, the United States does not need a draft at this time, but eventually, I think it will happen.

I think I’ve bored you all enough now.

Except for cheaper to run, I have to agree here. You said it better than I could.

[TC Pilot]

Observation of history. The military became better on a per-capita basis when it was volunteer-only, as opposed to relying on numbers.

Proof?

I'm not saying they were different at the time of both having conscripts and volunteers, but the difference between training when there was a draft and when there wasn't.

So the United States intentionally worsens its training program when it goes to war?

I'm quite surprised you are feigning this level of stupidity. Think carefully: Where do you get the extra instructors?

Where do they get the instructors for any draft? Heaven forbid there's actually some logistical forsight put into it, and not some enormously chaotic mass-mobilization of cannon fodder.

I would consider fragging and the suicide rate in Vietnam to be indicative of my point, actually.

Volunteers were as susceptible to fragging and mental disorders as draftees. I would wager the official policy encouraging the slaughter of civilians had something to do with it.

How curious. Are you saying there wasn't a sudden move to get women into men's jobs in WWII to take up the slack? Of course, we lack that untapped resource now...

And odds are the government won't draft beyond what is economically sound. The economy did not collapse during Vietnam, nor is the country faced with a need for soldiers on the magnitude of millions.

Are you going to be providing any evidence as you're required to, boy, or are you going to continue these silly rhetorical comments, dodges, and lies?

It's almost cute how quick you jumped from "All your examples are old" to "You haven't given proof". It's almost like you expected me not to notice.

Ah yes, I have no knowledge of WWII. The Soviet economy was chugging along so well under it's conscription, it didn't need any aid! Oh wait..

Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe the Soviet economy was in ruins because of conscription, and not four years of total war against a force that was inclined to kill millions of civilians

Well, it certainly wasn't using sheer numbers! Oh, wait...

The Red Army that was nearly steamrolled in Operation Barbarossa is a far cry from the Red Army in 1945 that smashed the German army into oblivion and destroyed the IJA and kept United States and Western European countries in a state of perpetual fear over the threat of invasion.

Not nil, merely very, very low unless we face a situation unexpected.

How cute! You snipped the part which disproves your claim!

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Now, boy, you evaded DR6 once already, pretending it was unnecessary.

Are you referring to chitoryu12's stupidity?

Your second strike has been going through this without anything to back up your assertions(There were no discipline or mental problems in Vietnam! Honest!).

Nice strawman. I never said there were no discipline or mental problems in Vietnam.

This is, of course, all diverting us from the actual matter, that volunteers are inherently superior to conscripts. If you were to revise your stance to a "all-things-being-equal", as Darth Wong called it, I would find that perfectly acceptable.

You contradict yourself. If I was trying to bolster my reputation, then why would I be so OBVIOUSLY wrong?

Hmm, maybe because you have a reputation for being a complete idiot? Thank you for proving my point.

So why the fuck did you say "A volunteer with a day's training is inferior to a conscript with a year's training"? If your arguement has nothing to do with levels of training, then why bring it up to deter an arguement that had nothing to do with training?

Study your verb tenses. In fact, try reading my posts and applying some reading comprehension before you humiliate yourself further.

So you still don't provide proof for your statement? Then that's as good a concession as any.

Try reading one sentence further, you dishonest fool.

And the training was extremely tough and high-quality. And unlike standard divisions, the Waffen SS usually picked from the people who most followed their ideals. They didn't just grab up random people, like modern conscription, nor did they require mandatory military service, like the Romans.

Indeed. It's almost like they had some... SELECTIVE SERVICE to determine who would be the best soldiers.

[SirNitram]

Oh look. No evidence to back up his claims. Just more smilies. And a demand I revise my position so that 'You have no problem with it'.

[chitoryu12]

Hmm, maybe because you have a reputation for being a complete idiot? Thank you for proving my point.

And this is the first time YOU acted like a fucking moron?

Study your verb tenses. In fact, try reading my posts and applying some reading comprehension before you humiliate yourself further.

You really want a recap of everything?

1. I said that the Romans were not a good source of evidence for conscripted armies being better because they were well-trained.
2. You said that a volunteer with a day's training is inferior to a conscript with a year's training.
3. I said that it's common sense and asked you to prove that volunteers get less training than conscripts.
4. You refused and instead tried to shift Burden of Proof onto me.
5. I asked you to provide evidence again.
6. You accused me of trying to bolster my reputation (Wouldn't that mean that you are a known moron, as attacking anyone else to look good would be counter-productive?) and refuted every saying a thing in your arguement about training and tried to use the fucking SS as evidence that conscripts are good, which is the Roman thing all over again.
7. I refuted your claim and said that not providing the evidence I asked for was a good concession.
8. You decided to not only refuse the evidence once more, but also called me a dishonest fool for asking for it.

And here we are.

When did I ever start an arguement over differing training levels of conscripts and soldiers? NEVER.

Try reading one sentence further, you dishonest fool.

So far, the only reason you have given for not providing evidence was "It's irrelevant. You are stupid."

Indeed. It's almost like they had some... SELECTIVE SERVICE to determine who would be the best soldiers.

Conscription works simply by taking someone who can be trained and shoving them into the military, his own opinion be damned. Quite different from the SS taking people who mostly follow Hitler's ideals and can take on extremely difficult missions without getting their heads removed seconds into the battle and training them. In every time conscription worked, it was because of both training and selecting individuals who would not desert and/or frag their officers. Do you find this kind of quality in any other conscripted army? Not much. Do you find this kind of quality in volunteer armies? Yes.

[Sidewinder]

As far as peacetime conscription, would society be better served by automatic conscription into the Reserves or National Guard, forgoing full-time duty alltogether, and serving as a "ready pool" from the get-go?

To my knowledge, US Army Reserves and National Guard members serve two years active duty before they become "weekend warriors." Removing the need for them to serve two years active duty would, in my opinion, diminish their training and their readiness to fight a real war.

[Knife]

As far as peacetime conscription, would society be better served by automatic conscription into the Reserves or National Guard, forgoing full-time duty alltogether, and serving as a "ready pool" from the get-go?

To my knowledge, US Army Reserves and National Guard members serve two years active duty before they become "weekend warriors." Removing the need for them to serve two years active duty would, in my opinion, diminish their training and their readiness to fight a real war.

If it is it's recent, since when I was in, people would go to bootcamp, then their A school and then go back home as a reservist. I guess if their MOS was complicated, you could end up doing two years of BC/A school until you were a part time killer.

[Zwinmar]

to my knowledge reservist go to boot camp, then their schools, then go home, to be stationed at the reserve center for 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year.

[Xisiqomelir]

30 months wasted in the SAF for nothing was shit, but relatively hazard-free.

I can easily see why anyone would want to go to Iraq even less.

This is entirely a moot discussion, though.