The_Zergling
Junior Member
Something that I have been thinking about a bit has been conscription, conscientous objection, and the draft during peacetime. (Total war situations will be disregarded) I'm curious about the opinions of other members on this issue, whether you like it or dislike it, and reasons for your stance.
Here's mine to start off...
From a negative viewpoint, conscription undeniably imposes on the freedom of each individual, and while some conscripts feel that they have benefited from their military experience, there are others who feel that time would have been beter spent pursuing their chosen careers or studies.
Male-only conscription is used in most countries (with some exceptions such as Israel, North Korea, Libya, Eritrea etc), with arguments both for and against it, those for arguing that on the average men are better physically suited for the military, with those against it asserting that it goes against equality for genders, and that there are many roles in which females would not be inferior to males (WWII mobilization is a good example)
Arguments against it state that despite all rhetoric, slogans or philosophy, in the end conscription is slavery. This viewpoint possilby comes from the fact that most people consider their own lives more valuable than an ideology, or needs of a community. (Personally I have absolutely no problem with this line of thought. But I do have a problem with people pretending to hide it)
Robert Heinlein famously was quoted, "Any country that has to defend itself with forced conscripts is not worth defending.”
On the plus side, some would argue that peacetime conscription is an excellent tool for teaching useful skills, physical (swimming, survival, first aid) as well as mental. Of course there are arguments that these skills could also effectively be taught in the public school system.
Rousseau was a strong advocate of conscription and against professional armies, stating that it was the right and privilege of every citizen to take responsibility for the defense of society, and leaving this business to professionals was a sign of moral decline. It is possible that Eastern philosophy of placing group survival higher than in Western societies would be conducive to universal military service.
A realistic benefit of conscription that I have seen first-hand in Taiwan would be the fact that every person (male at least, as Taiwan does not draft females though they can volunteer) understands that should war occur, they themselves, friends, relatives, loved ones would be dying in conflict; thus decreasing the willingness to get involved in a war that countries with a volunteer army would consider more readily.
And this last reason is probably the one that puts me on this side of the fence of favoring conscription (for countries that are more likely to go to war) because it makes it clear that it affects EVERYBODY and there will be nobody sheltered from the brutal realities of war. But I have many arguments favoring a volunteer army as well, which I will share when I have more time.
Thoughts?
Here's mine to start off...
From a negative viewpoint, conscription undeniably imposes on the freedom of each individual, and while some conscripts feel that they have benefited from their military experience, there are others who feel that time would have been beter spent pursuing their chosen careers or studies.
Male-only conscription is used in most countries (with some exceptions such as Israel, North Korea, Libya, Eritrea etc), with arguments both for and against it, those for arguing that on the average men are better physically suited for the military, with those against it asserting that it goes against equality for genders, and that there are many roles in which females would not be inferior to males (WWII mobilization is a good example)
Arguments against it state that despite all rhetoric, slogans or philosophy, in the end conscription is slavery. This viewpoint possilby comes from the fact that most people consider their own lives more valuable than an ideology, or needs of a community. (Personally I have absolutely no problem with this line of thought. But I do have a problem with people pretending to hide it)
Robert Heinlein famously was quoted, "Any country that has to defend itself with forced conscripts is not worth defending.”
On the plus side, some would argue that peacetime conscription is an excellent tool for teaching useful skills, physical (swimming, survival, first aid) as well as mental. Of course there are arguments that these skills could also effectively be taught in the public school system.
Rousseau was a strong advocate of conscription and against professional armies, stating that it was the right and privilege of every citizen to take responsibility for the defense of society, and leaving this business to professionals was a sign of moral decline. It is possible that Eastern philosophy of placing group survival higher than in Western societies would be conducive to universal military service.
A realistic benefit of conscription that I have seen first-hand in Taiwan would be the fact that every person (male at least, as Taiwan does not draft females though they can volunteer) understands that should war occur, they themselves, friends, relatives, loved ones would be dying in conflict; thus decreasing the willingness to get involved in a war that countries with a volunteer army would consider more readily.
And this last reason is probably the one that puts me on this side of the fence of favoring conscription (for countries that are more likely to go to war) because it makes it clear that it affects EVERYBODY and there will be nobody sheltered from the brutal realities of war. But I have many arguments favoring a volunteer army as well, which I will share when I have more time.
Thoughts?
