Hacker News Reader

This bunch of “unmotivated young men/people” are the least likely to get a war eagerly started but are REALLY only willing to fight if it’s necessary (e.g someone invading their home country and firing artillery at their home village).

In most countries the military doesn’t serve “the people” but the will of politics.

If a big portion of your military IS YOUR SOCIETY (e.g., young men very happily doing a lot of stuff except bombing the shit out of a random country) - it reduces the risk of some bogus operation.

Having conscripts as an important foundation of your military can bring a lot of peace and stability…

Maybe you want to read up a bit on the Vietnam war and how the public was deceived; it isn’t just much “sending conscripts over to a overseas to die for some piece of dirt” - if conscripts see no purpose in fighting over that patch of land, maybe politicians shouldn’t either !?

> Having conscripts as an important foundation of your military can bring a lot of peace and stability

I don't think there's any evidence for that one way or the other. I think you could also make a convincing argument that a professional military with a higher bar of recruits and a strong standing in law is less likely to do random shit for politicians. I'm not making that argument, just saying you need to back up such assertions.

Switzerland, Germany (post-WWII until somewhat recently) versus like UK, US, France?

If your military consists of your society instead of a “professionally hired military” that only answers to politicians instead of their girlfriends, mums n dads - I’d argue: less military “peace missions” abroad?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - rings a bell? You think you could have send conscripts there?

“Strong standing in law” - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya; you think the PEOPLE of these countries would agree???

Unfortunately generations of hopelessly naive and deluded politicians enthusiastically commit their forces to “peacekeeping” operations on a regular basis. Generally designed to prevent group-A of uncivilised people from killing group-B of more or less similarly uncivilised people. Note that this gets written up in the media as “good guys vs bad guys” of course. Recently (e.g. Sudan) even the media have struggled to find cartoon-level-simple labels for the armed factions.

> anything further west just isn't going to happen.

Are you somehow not counting Austria, Greece, and Switzerland as European?

[pedantic edit: the parent, to my interpretation, does not just argue that "introducing conscription would be a poor idea" but that "conscription is a poor idea" (whether one already has it or not); maybe it would be better off refined to the former?]

Switzerland most certainly is not going to start making military service compulsory.

> Switzerland most certainly is not going to start making military service compulsory.

How does that square with what I read on https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/military-service-and...

Every Swiss man is required to serve in the military or in the alternative civilian service. In most cases, the military service obligation applies from age 18 to 30.

So how could they possibly start doing it now? Military service is already a cultural expectation and their military is already structured around it because they've been doing it for over a century.

I think GP was being facetious? Switzerland is very well-known for its service obligation…

Uhhhmmmm.

"Switzerland has mandatory military service in the Swiss Army for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority, though women may volunteer for any position. Conscripts make up the majority of the manpower in the Swiss Armed Forces."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland

Yes, they quite definitively cannot suddenly switch to the practice.

Switzerland is in a somewhat unique position. They are not in NATO, and their position of staying neutral and keeping up trade with all sides depends on making it very unattractive to invade them. Conscription makes sense in that context.

GP was a bit too general.

Who's going to attack them?

Besides, they already have military service due to historical reasons. They don't have to reintroduce it.

> The only foe even worth considering is Russia - and NATO's combined professional armies are more than a match for them.

That's been shown to be true over the last year, but prior to that it was very much an open question.

Also from the perspective of "Europe" in an insular sense, it depends heavily on the large standing force and transport capability of the USA. Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia! And influential members of the minority party still wander close to that idea rhetorically.

> Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia!

Thanks for pointing this out… most people tend to forget this. Everything looks nice, until it doesn’t anymore.

> Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia!

While the president publicly said that, his actions were different. For instance, President Donald Trump instructed the United States European Command (EUCOM) to be moved from Stuttgart to Mons, near Brussels. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-militar...

> While the president publicly said that, his actions were different.

Sure. Certainly no one ever accused the Trump administration of well-coordinated messaging and communications strategies. Nonetheless the fact that the president was personally constrained by the needs and conventions in the rest of his administration isn't much solace to an ally trying to figure out how much reliance to place on US assistance in the future.

The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. That's not good, but it's not something to ignore just because the existing policy apparatus (the "deep state", if you will) is holding it in check for the moment.

> The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO.

According to Global Affairs, support for US commitment to NATO is at a 48-year high. Quoting from https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/sup...:

a) Eighty-one percent of Americans say the United States should maintain (62%) or increase (19%) its commitment to NATO, the highest level of support recorded since Chicago Council Surveys began in 1974.

b) Support for maintaining or increasing the US commitment to NATO is bipartisan, with large majorities of Democrats (90%), Independents (78%), and Republicans (75%) in support.

c) Bipartisan majorities support the admission of Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, and Georgia as new NATO members.

It actually wouldn't be that bad. After high school many European countries have 2-3 months of a break before most of them start college. Plenty of time to do a bootcamp.

That way you have a group of people with the basics. Based on that you can make further selections.

And it it should absolutely be possible to combine it with the first year of college.

It makes sense if you think how to make profit on human suffering.