Would conscription in America and Western European counties be a net benefit to them or a hindrance, disregarding public opinion on the matter? For example, assume all able bodied males must complete two years of service in a non-combat or combat role in the armed forces.
What would be the societal effects of having everyone required to serve for a point in their life, even if it wasn't in combat?
>>28438107
In Finland it works quite well. All males are required to serve 6-12 months in the army. Makes our armed forces a whole lot better than for example Sweden.
>>28438107
It would be a big drain on economy, having young men out of the work force or education for two years, while being paid from the state budget. The military advantages are small, most countries realized a small professional army is much more effective at fighting a war, especially in a world where small scale conflicts are the norm. My country did have conscription until about 10 years ago and it was universally despised, with desertion, suicides and abuse being pretty common. They gave up on it and the trust rates of the military rose massively.
>>28438107
Normies in my corner of the globe like to parrot shit like
>It's THE way for a small and/or poor country to build a sizable army!
>It prevents the military from being alienated from the general population!
>It turns boys into men by instilling masculine values and teaching useful skills!
And guess what? Every single one of these arguments is complete bullshit. If anything, mandatory service made me a worse person.
>>28438291
Probably because you're a faggot
>>28438311
We're all faggots here bruv.
conscription for both men and women should be introduced in europe desu
its not only that it provides a huge pool of manpower against threats both within and without, it would also inject some much needed nationalism
>>28438291
>>It prevents the military from being alienated from the general population!
Doesn't that make sense though? What happens in practice? I would think the largest distrust of soldiers comes from the fact that the majority of people haven't served.
Also, don't conscripted soldiers wind up doing a lot of civil work, like road construction and other mundane tasks since the state winds up with tons of manpower and figures they might as well get some work out of them too?
>>28439006
>wind up doing a lot of civil work
Maybe in Asian and African states, but not in yurokekistan. There's no way in hell any structure built by a bunch of disgruntled conscripts would conform to EU regulations.
>>28438360
That would never-EVER happen though. Sustaining a conscript army is a massive drain on resources (while the bang/buck ratio is hilariously poor - there's a good reason why conscripts are considered useless cannon fodder), so the yuros would have to dismantle their precious welfare systems.
Also, yurokeks are massively anti-war and anti-gun, so most would opt for some bullshit civilian service option (if available) or outright dodge the draft.
(Besides - they don't even have anyone to fight against. Why spend money on building a zerg rush military if you're not going to need it?)
>>28439006
I served as a conscript in Turkey, which is the shittiest country to be fighting for, I'm sure, but we did FUCK ALL during our service but sit on base.
Would never work in the USA. Americans at the moment are generally far too 'government is shit' at the moment to accept it.
The way I see it, many Americans are patriotic about a fictional America, and are not patriotic about the actual America.
Military conscription or civil service as basic condition for granting citizenship. Also war tax as a real stake and personal responsibility for nation's decision to go to war.
>advocate for conscription army
>make it clear your opinions mean nothing
>>28438360
germany had conscription until pretty recently, look how that turned out
>>28438107
cohesion of national "concept" by those having to servce
people more willing to follow orders in the future, as they have already done it before
conscription is good for a new country, as it forges a national identity. beyond that i am clueless as to the pros and cons
>>28439006
>Spending two years at the mercy of a pointless bureaucratic where you will be abused and fucked with constantly.
Yeah, that's going to make you love the army.
>>28438107
Conscription is pointless, expensive and results in a far less effective military. There's no reason or economic sense to provide full training for a useful military job when someone is only in for 6 to 24 months.
Longer conscription periods create a military with a massive bulk of resentful and useless conscripts that would be more a hindrance then a benefit in any conflict and absorbs large numbers of your volunteer force to ride herd over them.
A volunteer force is in all ways preferable.
>>28439508
>many Americans are patriotic about a fictional America
They are patriotic about the fictional idealized America they heard about when they were growing up, not what the US actually is and has always been.
>>28443365
Yeah, I dislike that sentiment. Seems kinda dangerous.
>>28438107
>all able bodied males
With women being able to serve in combat roles in the US would that change to include females too?
