• frankPodmore@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It is a bad idea, which is why nearly everywhere has stopped doing it and hardly anywhere has started again.

      • Alex@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s certainly a bad idea to rely on conscripts to make up the bulk of your fighting force. It’s not a totally bad idea to have a population of fighting age citizens have had some basic military training and know which way to hold a gun. Countries like Finland or Switzerland have a more realistic view of what they may need to do if things ever got bad on their eastern front.

        For the UK we’d have probably resorted to our nuclear deterrent before we consider putting conscripts on the front line.

        • ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          In a war, the bulk of Finland’s force will be made up of conscripts. Or more accurately, people who were conscripts.

          The career military men will be the officers. If you look at their officer to non officer ratio in peacetime it will be absolutely bananas compared to the UK’s. Because if they do get invaded by Russia, they’ll immediately call up their reserves (which due to conscription is their entire eligible population) and the ratios will make more sense.

      • ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Because their long term military strategy changed.

        Conscription makes perfect sense if you’re setting yourself up to fight a defensive war. E.g., Finland’s entire military is more or less built for a defensive war against Russia, so they conscript.

        Because they built it into their long term strategy, like I said in my original comment.

        • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          And when there’s any chance of us having to fight a defensive land war against Russia, I will admit I was wrong.

          • ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Don’t worry, you don’t need to admit you were wrong for you to be wrong.

            Other countries considering a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea.

            “Conscription is always a bad idea” is an objectively incorrect sentiment.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The UK military leadership disagree with you. IE the experts who need to manage the system.

      All it dose is create ill motivated unskilled labour. At a time were fighting a wat has the least need for that type of labour.

      • ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        And the military leadership of every country where conscription is a thing disagrees with you.

        All it dose is create ill motivated unskilled labour.

        If you think military conscription is for the here and now you unfortunately don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Conscription is so that if you need to mobilise quickly, all of your eligible population are already trained, have units to report to, officers etc.

        If you’re building a defensive military, it makes perfect sense, because in a defensive war motivation more or less ceases to be an issue.

        The UK’s military is far more expeditionary, so it doesn’t make sense unless you build it into your long term plan, which is exactly what I said in my original comment.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          As we are talking about the UK. Where it is UK military leaders and technological investment that the leaders will be training for.

          What any other nation thinks or dose is pretty worthless. As is some politicians trying to win votes from boomers. Or myself.

          Only opinion that matters really is the UK military leadership. Who make it clear they do not want this.

          • ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Other countries considering a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea.

            This isn’t talking specifically about the UK, and nor was I.

            • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Yeah this is a tread about the UK government trying to sell a crap idea.

              So yes the only opinion of any merit at all. Is what the military leaders of the UK armed forces think.

              Other nations have different military structures. Different concentration of assets. The UK back in the 1960s ended conscription. And decided instead to invest in technology. And personal with the training to operate that technology.

              Rather then using ill motivated short time troops as little more then cannon fodder.

              Conscription is always a bad idea. Because once you have gotten to that stage. You are basically deciding to throw bodies at the problem. As russia is doing.

              For a nation lacking funding. Sure it can be the only option. And for a nation at genuine risk of ground war. It can be needed. But its a bad idea. Because when you get to that stage. Other ideas and options before hand would always have been better.

              Conscription is by its very nature using citizens of your own nation to absorb attacks. As in no situation can conscripts show the professional training of people who choose to invest in a military career. Hence way pretty much every nation with funding. Even the few that keep the option active like the US. Has military leaders who reject it. And just mouthy politicians and older voters who think it is a positive solution.

              Edit: related but a little of topic. Another reason most nato nations and the UK reject conscription as anything but an all has failed strategy. Is MAD. As much as Russia threatens and brags. Russia knows full well attacking a NATO member nation will not result in a ground war. Russia simply dose not have the air or naval superiority over NATO nations as a whole. The only threat they have that has any chance of working in an all out war. Is nukes. And while russia may be overconfident in the effectivness of their own stock of nukes. They know full well NATOs are well maintained. So using one on a nato nation. Is the end of Russias ability to use them as a threat.

              There is a reason Russia has avoided landing on NATO land. Even after they forced Finland and sweeden to join. Mutually Assured Distruction may be crap when dealing with Extremist nations using terrorism. But Russia still has enough sanity to recognise its limits.