What's wrong with conscription?

the us would beat the swiss in war

>fighting a war against the swiss
>thinking you'll have an advantage against demi-french in the alps, where they have perfected mountain combat over the last 70 years.
>thinking your 80lbs kit will be usefull in the alps.

The government forcing you into something you don't want and didn't get to decide on is the opposite of freedom.

Even if you were conscripted into the Red Army in WW2 you had an 80 percent chance of surviving.

Trying to find a recent example. Please provide a link.

>hold the border around the minor country
>starve them out
wow so hard

>perfect mountain fighting
>gets nuked

How are you going to build up a sizeable reserve in a reasonable amount of time otherwise?

Attached: 80054a1eb48695e7120cfcd8cbe9f13d.jpg (500x372, 40K)

What's wrong with slavery?

>starving out the swiss

Attached: 1549382402510.jpg (284x276, 12K)

The red army is a general exception of the draft rule, mainly due to the protection that having a lot of other targets (comrades) around you.

In America, the militia is the defacto conscription for the United States. In my opinion, National Guard and Federal military units should be dissolved and in their place, a state level military unit should be made. So that each state not only has their own "national guard" in the usage of actual militia units, but also have "home units" that, during peacetime, are kept small and efficient, and in the event of a large war home or abroad. That unit gets bulked up and gets shipped off. Essentially, think of it like the 10th Mountain Div. is the home unit of Montana, and any citizen that joins the Army from Montana gets put into the 10th Mountain Div. etc.

And with that, you also have the Marine Corps that is their to fight all of Americas "small wars" seeing as how that is the literal purpose for the Marine Corps existence.

Thoughts?

Attached: USMC Small Wars Manual 1940 COIN Field Manual.jpg (220x343, 22K)

how is that a contra to my post and why are you calling me retard

Some states already have designated state militias or defense forces along with their state National Guard. Besides that Congress can put the draft back in place at any time it becomes necessary again and have a pool of tens of millions of young Americans info from Selective Service records.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Fuck conscription, it sucks ass. Thank my lucky stars that I was the first generation to not get drafted. Dodged a serious bullet there.

The Bundeswehr are just larpers anyway.

Attached: 1545578194063.png (889x1200, 1.47M)

>In America, the militia is the defacto conscription for the United States.
Jesus fucking Christ, Yanks.

Conscription in the US is actually called the Draft, it hasn't been used in several decades though but the Selective Service System is required by all military age males aged 18-26 in the US. Most of the time you have to register for Selective Service when doing Bureaucratic processes like getting your driver's license and shit. If Congress brought back the draft for a major war Selective Service records could be used to pull recruits up for service.

I'd argue that way of organization was because of past limitations rather than some Constitutional intention. The people are the militia, but uniformed units serving the roles of National Guard, State-raised Regiments State Defense, or whatever were because of how disconnected some states were; politically and geographically. People had to be prepared to serve their home state because they had a higher sense of loyalty to it than the nation, partly because whatever happened in other parts of the nation did not affect them. States could request and receive help from others but it was generally confined to the region.
Then during times of war, it wasn't easy to get a group of widespread individuals to some training camp, get them to bond, drill them, then get them to combat. It was very much a state-by-state thing up until the Civil War, where the North's industry and railroads meant there could be the creation and delivery of standardized equipment countrywide. People could catch a train in their home state and go to another to meet their unit or report for training. Or a unit could board and train and be brought to wherever they were needed. Just as now one can get on a plane and be across the country in hours (and the world in a little over a day).

Doing things on a purely local/state basis may create more pride, but it won't improve anything when some states simply have more resources and also more requirements.
I would also say that the idea of a "peace time" and "war time" military are also flawed. The US tried it in the past and it always resulted in getting roped into a conflict not anticipated and then having to play catch up with those who had already been fighting it. It is definitely expensive, but a country that wants to lead on the world stage needs to constantly be ready for conflict and able to impose its will. If one thinks the US should hold that position is another debate entirely.

Forcing people to fight in defense of the state is stupid. If it’s worth defending people will volunteer. If not sucks to suck.

Conscription is honestly great. Every man and woman should be conscripted, no exceptions. Literally everyone. Even the retards and cripples. Make it so every single citizen has the maximum amount of combat experience suitable for them at the time of their conscription, so that everyone strongly identifies as a soldier of their country.

Its slavery and only bootlickers defend it

absolutely nothing

If you frame it as a common honourable service to your beloved fatherland, people may like doing it (and will generally do a better job at it than welfare queens who can't find employment otherwise). Examples: Switzerland, Finland, not many others still left.
If, on the other hand, you're dicking around (or worse, getting dicked... russians know) in a purposeless, incapable vestige of an army that either doesn't defend your country or couldn't defend it if it tried... yeah. Examples: Russian Army, Bundeswehr, most armies in the world really.
It's not slavery and an argument could be made for it being unjust even still... but an argument could also be made that the non-serving do not deserve political rights as citizens (that's literally how it was in many historical republics).

The way that it could be set up is as follows. While every fighting age citizen is technically the "militia". Each state sets up its own State Defense Force(S.D.F.). This SDF serves as that States home guard, where it receives training and is properly equipped, while also having fighters that are both "weekend warriors" and others that are full time. A typical SDF would only have to be a Regiment or a Brigade sized force for a given State. From there, Each state will have their own Home Unit(s). How this would work would be for each State to have a Division sized unit standing at all times while also having two other "Ghost Divisions" that during peacetime are not staffed. This would enable every state to have one Division and also have the capability to rapidly stand an entire Corps if need be. So even at bare minimum, with the exception of a few special units such as Airborne units and SF, there would be 50 Divisions always at the ready with the capability in the event of a large war, be able to stand a full 3 Division Corps if need be, and this could be down Nationwide to avoid some States standing entire Corps while others only have their one. As in, No state has 3 Divisions up until EVERY State has 2 up, etc.

If the Draft becomes a necessity, it can be done at the State level, but because each State only needs to stand 1 Division and a couple SDF Regiments, the Draft would be mostly unnecessary with the exception of massive wars. State Police forces and Departments could also be integrated into the SDF's. Not as in militarize patrol Officers, but to integrate them into Law Enforcement sub divisions within the SDF to lessen the need for high troop counts in said SDF's.

Attached: early Afghanistan days us soldiers.jpg (2000x1312, 1.17M)

I really like this idea.
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/04/modern-time-landwehr-for-germany.html
(Disregard the fact that it's meant for a dead corpse of a nation. It would work in other places as well.)

Literally nothing.

I wish my country had conscription

Attached: 4a0.jpg (1808x1204, 692K)

Nothing so long as institution-wise, it's maintained as a well-oiled machine. Which is the opposite of what America does where I seriously doubt most eligible men even bother registering for it anymore.

I'm gonna guess that the general attitude in the Pentagon is that if it gets to the point where they HAVE to reinstitute the draft just to keep the Army functioning, that the United States is effectively already screwed. Hence why the Selective Service System has basically been neglected for the past 40 years.

Attached: a-marine-from-the-2nd-light-armored-infantry-battalion-attached-to-marine-forces-2aedb2.jpg (2820x1810, 2.46M)

Attached: This is your country on conscription.jpg (2500x1667, 3.86M)

It's literally slavery.

Nothing as long as the nations armed forces are defense oriented. IE not sending conscripted soldiers to die in some shit hole they don't want to be in.

While I admire the Swiss "mountain fortress" thing, it was far more viable in WW2 than it is now.

Planes can fly higher and faster, artillery can shoot farther, etc. And the US has a whole fuck of a lot more of, well everything. Swiss Air Force is pretty small and so are the ground forces. They have like 2 tank battalions and like 4 mechanized battalions. And these are spread out. I'd put money on 2CR and the 173rd being able to fuck Switzerland up pretty good.

>thinking your 80lbs kit will be usefull in the alps.
Are you implying that body armor is useless? Do you think that the Swiss military doesn't also use body armor?

It separates you from your work and family. We ought not to have conscription, but instead have workers militias which are based upon where you live and work. Thus when someone invades your home you will literally be fighting alongside your coworkers and neighbors to push them back and defend your families.

Attached: 1553035113126.jpg (850x781, 133K)

>medpacs hiding in the mountains
>think they'll face waves of inexperienced burgers that they'll slaughter
>get bombed the fuck out instead

gg no re

the government shouldnt get to rob you of 2 years of your life, 2 years of your labor, 2 years of your potential wages, 2 years away from your family, just to fight some pointless war

Attached: Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg (378x261, 51K)

Useless for most nations.
You mean provides mandatory brainwashing?

>This drastically cuts down training needed during war.
Except it doesnt. Army Reserves and active duty units take about the same amount of time to gear up, prepare and deploy. As long as the infrastructure is there, it doesnt matter.

If it isn't done right you'll have an overburdened officer corps and difficulty keeping hold of experienced enlisted personnel.

Attached: 05KJWfi (1).jpg (453x604, 57K)

Why.

Wow, way to miss the point, retard.

You really dont understand conscription do you?

i shouldn't have to justify why my freedom shouldn't be taken

We just re-introduced it and it works well, the troops are really good so far, but we onlh select ghe top 10% too.

A small nation cant possibly create a large enough professional army to defend itself against a capable, much larger foe, so we kinda have to have it

Attached: 1200px-Soldier_with_Carl_Gustaf_SMG_DA-SN-83-09169.jpg (1200x799, 159K)

Yes, you should.

For example, your freedom is taken every day with sales tax, income tax, laws regarding movement and passage, etc.

Most non-shit nations has it written in its laws that conscripts can lnly be used to defend the homeland.

That said, two years is still two years

>The govt takes some of your freedom anyway, so why not let them take it all?

While I support conscription, you are just beeing stupid now

No, I'm asking him to complete his thought.

>sales tax, income tax, laws regarding movement and passage, etc.
i guess that justifies getting rid of all freedom then. Time to shred up the Constitution

Conscripted armies generally don't fare well against similarly sized professional or volunteer armies.

Mexico, 1846
Spain, 1898
France, 1940
Argentina, 1982

Guy on the left has so Much more bewilderment on his face than I do.

Attached: 20190319_192509.jpg (112x82, 8K)

The problem is that a similarly sized professional army is around ten times as expensive to run tho.

>France, 1940
You do realize there were conscription in both France and Germany do you?

>Argentina, 1982
In what fucking world was the argentine navy even remotly similarly sized as ghe RN?

True. But freedom isn't free.
Yeah, perhaps not a great example.

>>

The Argentines had twice as many combat aircraft as the Brits could bring to bear

>But freedom isn't free.
Correct, but for the same money you can have 10 000 strong professional force, you can have a 100 000 men strong conscript force. And id bet my money on the conscripts in that case.

That's a bet you would lose.

Yeah, and they had no conscripts as pilots or technicans, so thats kind of moot in this argument.

The draft is enumerated and indeed a core part of the constitution. Fuck off retard.

Lmao, keep dreaming.

No matter how good a professional soldier is, he can still only be at one place at one time.

A cohesive unit with strong agency can defeat a less coordinated force that's far larger.

Agreed. Consider my balls busted

>allowing mass agriculture
Ooof

Finnish-Soviet Winter War. I don't know what the Finnish conscription policy was though

Impossible to say, but here is a more real world comparrison.

Finlands armed forces costs around 2,5 billion euros a year, and can mobilize about 300 000 men.

Swedens professional armed forces costs around 5,5 billion euros a year to run and has 30 000 active plus another 20 000 reserve.

Both nations has similar equipment, and roughly ghe same ammount of vehicles/aircraft/ships. Finland however has around fifty times as much artillery.

The FDF would stomp Sweden so hard it wouldnt even be fun to watch, despite only having half its budget. Thats how much conscription lowers costs.

>A cohesive unit with strong agency can defeat a less coordinated force that's far larger.

And why would the far larger force in this case be less coordinated? All officers in conscript armies are still proffessional, unless you start talking about actual 3rd world nations.

Statistically speaking the Swiss are more demi-german. Something like two thirds of Swiss speak Swiss German (which is admittedly rather different from standard German) as their native tongue.

That’s a 1 in 5 chance of dying. The only reason they put up with is is the fact that they had a 1-1 chance of being worked to death if they lost.

And because nobody knew the statistics, and those who did kept shut about it.

The Mountain Jew would be a hard nut to crack but of course in the end the US would win.

Attached: 1411678653475.png (760x600, 240K)

Conscription is slavery the same way taxation is theft. Jow Forums is and will always be a libertarian board. Dubs confirms.

>The FDF would stomp Sweden so hard it wouldnt even be fun to watch
[citation needed]

>Singles
>Jow Forums confirmed as a statist board

>gearing up for deployment = the process of training people how to be soldiers and infantrymen/tankers/whatever

Pre-mob for guard/reserves is so much longer than for active

They have far far more logistics, almost ten times the ammount of troops (again, with each individual soldier having almost the same standard on his equipment as any swede) and fifty times the ammount of artillery.

How can this not be obvious to you? Had they had the same budget it would be even more onesided.

>almost ten times the ammount of troops
No they don't. They claim to have 300,000 people in reserve, but how useful would they really be? Could the Finnish military absorb 300K personnel who have likely forgotten a good amount of their training, and many of whom wouldn't even want to be there? How long would that take?
>and fifty times the ammount of artillery
The vast majority of which is soviet surplus junk. Sweden also has a much better air force and navy than Finland.

In an arena, almost certainly due to sheer numerical advantage. In reality, the shortness of the frontline would work to Sweden’s advantage, partially nullifying Finland’s numerical advantage. Assuming that both sides only get to use what they can muster when the war starts, I’d still put my money on Finland because 6:1 is a massive advantage regardless of soldier quality (the disparity of which is not large in this case), but that victory would come at a cost if Finland is attacking and seeks to take and hold significant parts of Sweden.

At the end of the day the only real way of not being trodden on is to wear the boots yourself.

Not even then dude, sncos and officers will shit on you

Conscription is literally more fair than taxation, prove me wrong.

It works pretty well for small nations that only uses their military for defence and deterrence.
ie: any small nation that just wants to fight off the occasional terror attack or deter their similarly small neighbors from attacking
If you're a large nation there is no point doing peacetime conscription.

Like all military doctrines, conscription works only under certain circumstances. Its usually the smaller nations that does it anyway, and it works for them because its the only way for them to have a sizable force, no point trying to argue for conscription in the US or any large nations.

Its socialist

I mean yeah defending would def. play into Finlands.

No, they have 900k in reserve, out of which they plan to be able to field 300k at any given time. This 300k is the best and the youngest, and even once they are out of the military, they still have mandatory refresher training and a big chunk, if not most of these guys take part in voluntary reservist training. They even get to buy semi auto assault rifles and pistols.

So actually the finns have 20 times as many men as the swedes do.

Well, in a Sweden vs Finland slapfight they'd do nothing because putting 30 divisions of light infantry in the field is logistically impossible for Finland now, much less after they'd had the shit bombed out of them and lost the logistic ability to sustain more then two or three divisions in the field.

The hypothetical ability to call up a massive reserve becomes pretty irrelevant if you can't feed them or keep them armed.

>Best and youngest

Finnish conscripts spend less then a year the military and receive only basic training, none are trained to the level you'd see in, for example USMC infantrymen.

On average, about 25,000 are trained every year. That 900,000 represents every man that has finished training in the last 36 years. Even the 300,000 represents men that haven't touched a rifle in more then a decade, not the 'best and youngest'.

With less then 10,000 staff personnel they don't even have a proper cadre to build a large military around. They just don't have enough NCOs or officers to put more then a few divisions in the field.

Without it being culturally ingrained into your country and having it being seen as "normal" it's pretty fucking bad.

Bad enough that Volunteers already slack off and aren't motivated you're taking millions who don't want to do this and likely won't do it and forcing them to take up arms for whatever the state desires. If Conscription was something you couldn't get out of regardless of how rich you were or who you were and Conscripts could only be pulled for active State Defense it'd be a pretty ok system but how it is you just know it'll be used to throw anyone who isn't megarich into the grinder so that they get richer

The Swiss have it good because they haven't been in a war since 1847, I honestly wonder how the attitude would change if the Swiss were thrown into one third world hellhole after another getting thousands of young men and women killed for nothing at all

Seems better off forcing every boy and girl from the age of 4 to 18 into some kind of "hardcore", mandatory, before school/after school boyscouts system where they attain physical fitness, survival and soldiering skills

Attached: 1552687337746.jpg (480x360, 16K)

>What's wrong with conscription?
the jews figured out it turns the populace against endless wars for banks and israel

its better for them to have a fucked over smaller professional army full of blacks and hispanics and trannies that they can send off to fight indefinitely with zero pushback from the average goy

Attached: enrolled.jpg (717x640, 127K)

Yeah, volunteers are almost always better, especially for expeditionary forces. You want people that list their job as solider and make a years long commitment, not people that are suffering though a 6 to 18 month conscription.

It's culturally ingrained into Russia and is seen as "normal" and it's still pretty fucking bad. The conscript rape is a real thing.