No, because in all times the elites don't have to fight, while the plebs must die for [insert abstract concept].

The entire idea of fighting "for your country" is ridiculous to me. It's not my country.

Almost the entire human race has no influence on the events that occur at all.

I mean, it's slavery.

100% against.

People don't belong to the government, and shouldn't be forced into doing any sort of job, especially one where they could be killed or traumatized for life.

If the people think their country is worth fighting for and a threat is legitimate, they should choose to defend it if the system is working properly.

Absolutely not. It's slavery, and forcing humans to kill other humans for the cause of some sociopaths that hold power is abhorrent.

My great grandad was conscripted in WW2, he escaped twice just so he could hold his baby daughter. Good for him. I might not have got to meet him if he hadn't done that. Seeing his friends get blown to bits for nothing changed him forever.

Here in Finland I am currently doing The military service and yea it kinda sucks but I do feel its necessary for a country like Finland. Its "only" 165-347 -days long and a very big Part of Finnish culture, so I don't feel that Bad about it. It also really makes you grow as a person, having to tolerate all the bullshit that we have to do and we learn a lot of useful skills for Day to Day Life.

I'm conflicted on it.
In a case where a country is under constant threat of attack and there is a very real chance of that country being conquered by a hostile military power, I do see the argument for conscription. This argument works much better in freer countries, where the people enjoy a stable way of life. It becomes similar to taxes, everyone who lives under such a system is required to "chip in" for the good of the country. Take a country like Finland as an example. They have been invaded, multiple times, by The Russian Empire/Soviet Union. Having much of their population trained to fight a modern military conflict makes the cost of invasion much higher for the attacker. And I suspect the vast majority of Finns see their current government as preferable to domination by Russia.

The other side of that coin, is that a country might use those conscripts to engage in foreign military adventures, which have nothing to do with defending the country. The obvious example of this being the US involvement in Vietnam. US politicians got away with forcing many young men to go die, in a foreign country for really stupid reasons. And I would find it hard to ever agree with the US Government being allowed to draft soldiers again.

I could see a sort of "middle ground" option being useful. A "limited conscription". This would require some period of training and public service as a form of taxation. Individuals are required to complete infantry training, so they have a basic understanding of modern infantry tactics, in the event a country is invaded. At the end of training, they then move into a public sector job for the rest of their term, with the option (entirely their choice) to serve in a military role. Such a system provides the country with a much larger pool of individuals with some training, in the event of invasion, and also provides a large, low level, work force to perform public works. I'm thinking of it as something like the Public Works Administration, except you first spend 6 months learning how to shoot a rifle and dig a trench. And then you spend the next 18 months building roads, improving levees, or handling the mountain of paperwork which feeds a bureaucracy.

I doubt such a system is what you're asking about. But, at least in the US, I don't think the people will trust the Federal Government to wield the power of a real military draft again for a long time. Vietnam is still well remembered and the debacle in the War in Iraq 2: Daddy Didn't Go Far Enough, has people skeptical of the Government's use of war powers. Though, technically, "The Draft" never really went away. US Males are required to sign up for "Selective Service" and the laws states that they can be called up to serve. But, unless the US is under direct threat of invasion, I expect that trying to do so would result in riots. At least, I hope any politician pushing that idea would get dragged out of his office and lynched in the streets.

There are two main reasons to conscript citizens. The first, to fight wars, has largely faded into irrelevance (barring exceptions for those waging war, like Russia, or those defending their country, like Ukraine). For the most part wars are better fought by paid professionals.

It's the second type of conscription that I will discuss. Many governments promote a system of national service for reasons of social cohesion, (the so-called Scandinavian model). It has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender. It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population. It builds respect for the armed forces, teaching civilians that their freedom ultimately depends on others’ willingness to kill and be killed. And it subjects a pampered population to a bracing dose of spartan clean living, away from iPads and alcopops.

The problem is in the implementation. Social service should not be confined to the young. One of the biggest divides in society is generational, and national service only for the young would not change that. Moreover it would do many older folks a lot of good to learn the value of inclusion and diversity.

I'd say it depends on the country, I could understand if the country's military is a self defense force like Japan's military for example. In my particular context, I live in US and I hope to see that conscription never happens again, we have an insatiable military industrial complex and war machine. We have 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad, we even have one in Syria near the oil fields and we were never invited there. Plus we have a long history of interventions that have gone awry, including the more recent ones like Libya back in 2011, we made the situation even worse. All conscription would do is just serve our imperialism.

I live in a country with mandatory conscription.

If the time served is reasonable and the army is organized enough to actually train you and take advantage of your skills, yes i'm all for it.

If not, it just an excuse for permanent stuff to boss around people and make them do meaningless work to look busy.

Conscription is not good or needed, the modern military is equipped with a wide array of technology and the best training available, it takes year(s) to fully train a soldier. There was a time when you could hand a consript a gun and point him in a the right direction and you had an army, in a modern conflict that lack of training is lethal.

Also in an all volunteer force it's hard enough to manage groups who volunteered to be in the military, I can't imagine controlling people who were forced to be there.

It's funny you mention it because yesterday I had a long talk with someone about it.

She was a conscientious objector and they threw her in jail for quite a while. We're from the Netherlands and apparently they shared this data with the US. So strangely enough she isn't allowed to enter the US now. That's really shocking to me.

Whatever your opinion on war is, you can't expect everyone to be able to shoot someone else. I know for certain that I couldn't.

I am conflicted.

On the one hand, conscription is essentially forced labour. Some countries take that concept even further and allow the potential conscripts to choose between military service and straight-up forced labour e.g. in social jobs like emergency services or care jobs. Im my home country this goes so far that some parts of the social system wouldn't work without this system.

This is also an equality issue, since almost all counties only apply something like that to young men and not women, even though women are totally capable for that kind of work as well.

On the other hand, if a country has a military that is primarily based on carreer soldiers, it becomes much easier for an emerging dictatorship to order these soldiers to e.g. shoot at protesters. A military based on mostly ordinary people who were conscripted as young men and stay trained using a militia system (like e.g. the Swiss does) is imho much more stable against e.g. military coups.

But it is a significant and non-voluntary investment.

In the Swiss, for example, every man has to spend ~2% of their work life in the military, which can be directly equated to a ~1% loss in GDP, just for mandatory military service.

In Israel, men have to serve for a minimum of 2 years and 8 months, while women have to serve 2 years, which roughly equates to a loss of ~5% GDP.

Conscription doesn't make a military cheaper of stronger compared to a complete volunteer/carreer army.

(Take these back-of-the-napkin calculations with a lot of salt, they are just there to show a rough dimension.)

So yeah, forced labour and lots of involuntary time investment of a significant portion of the population vs higher resistance against coups.

I'll speak from the perspective of Greece, which has mandatory military service for all males >= 18yo that lasts a full year.

It makes sense that the country needs conscripts and a population that knows how to fight, since we have a neighbor that doesn't play so nice with their surrounding countries.

However the way it's implemented is pure bullshit:

• The actual training happens in the first few months, after that it's just free manual labour.

• You get to deal with so much BS from the permanent staff, they have a huge superiority complex that you have to accept and play by in order to not have penalties or military prison.

• You can't go home, can't see your loved ones, your life is basically shit except the days that you're given leave, which is around a month or so in total.

• You get no sleep and work all day, it's a common phenomenon to sleep 3 hours every day.

• It's unpaid. (it's actually 8.5 euro a month which is arguably worse than unpaid, it's like getting spat on the face)

• You pay for lots of things, travelling to/from the base, buying food outside etc.

• It's corrupt as fuck. There are so many people that know someone in the military or meet someone inside, and get very special treatment while the rest have to work twice as hard to cover up for them.

• It is extremely hard to avoid it completely, there are parents with little kids that are missing from home for months because of it, there are poor people that can't afford not to be working but still have to go, there are mentally ill people that aren't given a full exclusion.

And it used to be much worse than this, we're the ones that "have it good"..

I think it's utterly necessary in situations like what Ukraine is facing. Could a government misuse it? Sure, but most government powers can be misused.

Only as an absolute last resort to an existential threat and even then there should be options for people to contribute without having to actively kill another person if it’s at all possible.

Even then I’m not sure it’s justified.

Against.

If I ever feel compelled to take up arms for any cause, I'd want my squad to be as committed to that cause as I am.

Against.

If I get conscripted you'll never find me.

I'll fight for the country on home soil but never overseas.

No one should ever be forced to fight or die for something they don't believe in.

If in service of national infrastructure projects or search and rescue yeah maybe.
If to die in a far off jungle/desert I'd as soon shoot my CO

Government should incetivise population to fight for it rather than force service.

It's not ok but it's unfortunately necessary

Maybe, under specific conditions, and only if certain requirements are met.

Firstly, I’m only (reluctantly) in favor of conscription for defensive wars. Never mind the propaganda - if a conscript is ever stationed outside their nation’s borders, that’s not “defense” (by conscription standards, anyway). None of that “preemptive strike” bullshit. They also must be adequately trained. Throwing people into the meat grinder is not okay.

Secondly, conscripts get free, high-quality healthcare for life (I know, some of you already do, but I’m American). No exceptions or exclusions of any kind, and no red tape. Individuals must be well compensated for any injuries, and family must be well compensated in case of death.

Thirdly, conscripts must be well paid, and guaranteed a return to their peacetime job regardless of company size, length of absence, etc.

I’m sure there are many points I haven’t addressed, so feel free to add them!

Depends on the situation. I would accept conscription for myself as a measure of last resort ie. defence. I probably wouldn't be much use to them anyway so they would have to be really desperate!! I also kind of like how the Swiss military service works, everyone does it, knowing it will probably never be needed... because it teaches life skills etc.
On the other hand I don't think I could get behind the US conscription for Vietnam or Russia conscription for Ukraine.

I feel like it's necessary for some countries, e.g. Finland. Nobody in their right mind would ever want to invade finland given how strong their military is. You just can't achieve that without conscription.