Vs. Finland has reserves of 870 000 from a population of about 5.6 million.
Via the magic of universal male conscription:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Conscri...
Via the magic of universal male conscription:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Conscri...
And of course we don't feel the need quite so acutely as the Finns.
And if you are called up but prefer not to bear arms you can do a civilian service instead.
You are obligated to give your child tools to choose his future if your government is trying to deny him that choice.
In that discussion they are saying that it's unethical to have a child in a country that will draft him unless you prepare him (via learning another language, etc.) to leave as soon as he is 18.
(Just explaining, not putting forth any take on the matter).
(I do agree with what you are trying to say though)
In any case I would hope we would reject the notion that you can become a slave and made to die for the state because you allegedly owe them for something they did for you before you were old enough to even wittingly object or agree to it.
If, for example, society sees fit to deprive me of my right to security (for instance, perhaps it deigns to throw me in jail if I defend myself against a home invasion), then society doesn't get to demand I give my life for its security.
In this way, it is society that has broken the contract with me, releasing me of my obligations to defend it. Most people who claim "duty and obligation to society" conveniently forget this is possible. By accident, I'm sure.
There's a very strong impulse in American society to say that, no matter what situation you find yourself in, there must be a path out of it that doesn't involve doing anything wrong.
If you start with that premise, it's easy to prove that it's impossible to have conflicting duties.
I think this viewpoint is insane, but it's common anyway.
Your enemy is whoever is willing to sacrifice you for their goals, both offensive and defensive. Flags don't matter.