Conscription and women

[Beorning]

Something I've been kind of thinking about lately...

Quite recently, Latvia has reactivated / reintroduced compulsory military service for men (due to Russia's attack on Ukraine). There are some talks about doing it here in Poland, too. Now, if that happens, I won't be happy about it, as I think that conscription is a bad system both from the point of view of the civil rights and from the point of view of military needs. But there's one other aspect:

If conscription is reintroduced in 21st century, shouldn't it cover men *and* women equally?

As far as I know, Latvia is currently drafting only men - and, if we get a return to draft in Poland, I suspect that would be the case, too. But isn't it quite... horrible? Modern military has a lot of roles that can be filled by people of any sex. So, the idea that a modern state could keep drafting only men, seems undefensible...

I don't want to sound like one of the "Men's Rights Activists", but that bothers me.

[GloomCookie]

Conscription isn't as common as it once was, but used to every army had a core of professional soldiers who were full time and then during times of war would rapidly increase their forces through conscription. The fact that the United States and other nations have gone to 100% voluntary is great, but men in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 are still required to register for the draft and could potentially be called up for active service.

The debate around including women in the draft isn't new though. I graduated high school in 2005, and the debates came up about women being drafted because in 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. I distinctly remember this conversation:

History teacher: Well, if they can't fill their numbers, the Army might start drafting people.

Female student: Hmmph, bye bye boys!

History teacher: They're talking about including women too though.

Female student: Oh hell no!

The reason politicians are hesitant is because, especially in the US, there's a ton of traditionalists who believe women have no place on the battlefield, despite women being in the military for several decades.

There are definite pros to conscripting women (or just people in general): For one, conscripts can be used to fill less critical roles in the armed services, such as sanitation duties, clerical duties, general labor, etc. They don't need a lot of training and it gets people who would otherwise be tied up doing basic tasks off doing more mission critical tasks while still respecting their MOS. Second, it's no secret that a lot of men and women would fail current military guidelines for health and wellness.

The cons are two fold. One, the Army already has a problem with women in the armed services in trying to both outfit them and provide for basic needs like menstruation. Second, you're pouring a lot of people who don't want to be there into a group that already is going to have morale issues.

Note that a cursory glance at Wikipedia states that in both 2020 and 2021 there were attempts to revise the Military Selective Service Act (Which covers the draft in the United States) to use non-gendered language.

Either way, conscription is a stop-gap measure if the military can't get the bodies it needs from voluntary enlistment. At that point, the military is less likely to take on individuals who are a good fit and more or less take anyone, which can (and does) lead to problems.

From what I'm able to find, Poland has a current force of 164,000 personnel in its military, of which 25,000 are actively deployed, with 16,000 personnel recruited in 2022.  According to https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pl-personnel.htm which also included an interesting blurb about Poland's workaround to active conscription:

Poland’s army said 18 May 2022 it was launching a new form of military service amid security concerns because of the war in neighbouring Ukraine. The Polish military said volunteers will be able to provide a year’s paid service that can be turned into long-term or professional service. Those who enter the program will go through a 28-day training period with a military unit, and then perform 11 months of service. They will receive a pre-tax monthly salary of some 4,500 zlotys ($1,000). The first volunteers will be able to enlist from 21 May 2022.

In mid-July 2021, PiS president Jaroslaw Kaczynski announced that a program of expansion and "very serious" strengthening of the Polish Armed Forces was being prepared. The head of the Ministry of National Defense, Mariusz Blaszczak, announced an army of 250,000, would then reach approximately the size of the French army (now it has about 270,000 soldiers). The number of soldiers of the Territorial Defense Forces (Territorial Defense Forces) was to increase to 50,000. This would have to result in at least doubling the budget of the Armed Forces. The head of the Ministry of National Defense recalled that the outlays and defense would increase. In 2020, they were 2.37 percent. GDP, and by 2030 it is expected to amount to 2.5 percent. GDP. - But these are also too low amounts - assessed Blaszczak. Blaszczak emphasized that the law prepared by the Committee for National Security and Defense Affairs would be presented this autumn . "These documents will create the basis for increasing the size of the Polish Army, and the financing mechanism will be the basic element of this act" - emphasized the head of the Ministry of National Defense.

If this is indeed the case, then Poland might be able to avoid conscription while still keeping a voluntary force willing and capable of taking on Russia should the need arise.

[Beorning]

Something I need to clarify is that I'm not referring strictly to wartime draft / conscription (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms)... I don't know how it worked in the States, but back here, up until around 20 years ago, there was this regular yearly draft. Basically, all men had to register for draft after reaching adulthood - and, if they were deemed physically fit, they got drafted for a year or two (I'm not sure how long exactly) of regular service. Meaning, they had to report to an appropriate unit / base, live in the barracks etc. You were exempt from this if you were deemed too... flawed physically (my case) or had some other excuse (like being a sole provider for a family or having qualified for university-level education). But overall, for the men of my generation, being ripped from home and being sent to barracks on another side of the country was an unpleasant looming threat in our young adult days.

Personally, I'm a strong opponent of such compulsory military service for both humanitarian and practical reasons. Speaking from the human rights perspective, being needlessly into forced military service is just cruel - and potentially abusive. I suspect (or hope..?) that things improved when it comes to the military mentality in the last two decades... but in my youth, there were horror stories circulating about what military service could be like. Violence, all kinds of bullying, suicides... take your pick.

On the practical side? I'm a clinical psychologist by education and, after getting my Masters, I was an intern at a military psychiatric facility. We occassionally got sent draftees to diagnose or treat. And, well... having seen these guys, I'm convinced that you cannot build a good military based on this kind of recruits. Seriously, what's the actual combat value of a small, physically unfit and super-anxious young boy?

So, yeah - I'm against the draft. On the other hand, if such form of draft was reintroduced - why would women be exempt from it? Why should the aforementioned anxious and clumsy boy be considered obligated to serve, while fit and mentally balanced women would not? This makes neither ethical or practical sense...

As for the possibility of such draft being reintroduced in Poland - we might not need it, but you need to remember that our government is severely right-wing *and* (hypocritically enough) quite enamoured with the ruling methods of the old Communist regime. Jarosław Kaczyński (AKA the Chairman and the Saviour of the Nation) has already expressed opinion that compulsory military service is needed for building the national spirit etc. So...

[Azy]

Israel has compulsory military service, and women are included.  They do have exceptions for Palestinian residents, those who enter religious studies, very religious/traditional women, and of course those who are not physically and/or mentally fit.  I was unfortunately not able to find a good source for that in English, but that seems to be the gist of it.  But that's their culture.

Here in the US, women who wanted to serve had to fight to be able to.  For the longest time they could fill non combat rolls, but couldn't be in combat.  The popular argument was it would be a distraction to the men.  Not sexually, but the men would be protective of the women and not focused on the job at hand.  Since women have been allowed to serve rape has been a major issue, but that's another topic. 

I'm sure it also has to do with stereotypes.  Men are more physically fit.  They're bigger and stronger.  Women are too emotional to handle to job.  Women who have served have proved they could do it, but old fashioned thinking is probably going to be around for a while. 

Me... I hear bone spurs will get you out of a draft.  I actually have one.  I don't need to pay a doctor to lie for me, just tell them to x-ray my left arm, and it's pretty hard to miss.       

[GloomCookie]

Something I need to clarify is that I'm not referring strictly to wartime draft / conscription (I apologize if I'm not using the correct terms)... I don't know how it worked in the States, but back here, up until around 20 years ago, there was this regular yearly draft. Basically, all men had to register for draft after reaching adulthood - and, if they were deemed physically fit, they got drafted for a year or two (I'm not sure how long exactly) of regular service. Meaning, they had to report to an appropriate unit / base, live in the barracks etc. You were exempt from this if you were deemed too... flawed physically (my case) or had some other excuse (like being a sole provider for a family or having qualified for university-level education). But overall, for the men of my generation, being ripped from home and being sent to barracks on another side of the country was an unpleasant looming threat in our young adult days.

Just so everyone is on the same page. In the United States, men are required to sign up for Selective Service, often known as the draft, and are kept in the system from ages 18 to 25. This is because while the United States does maintain a large volunteer force, it was necessary even into the 1970's to draft men to send to conflicts such as Vietnam. There is no mandatory testing required considering the US hasn't used the draft in almost 5 decades, but it's still mandatory for men.

Personally, I'm a strong opponent of such compulsory military service for both humanitarian and practical reasons. Speaking from the human rights perspective, being needlessly into forced military service is just cruel - and potentially abusive. I suspect (or hope..?) that things improved when it comes to the military mentality in the last two decades... but in my youth, there were horror stories circulating about what military service could be like. Violence, all kinds of bullying, suicides... take your pick.

On the practical side? I'm a clinical psychologist by education and, after getting my Masters, I was an intern at a military psychiatric facility. We occassionally got sent draftees to diagnose or treat. And, well... having seen these guys, I'm convinced that you cannot build a good military based on this kind of recruits. Seriously, what's the actual combat value of a small, physically unfit and super-anxious young boy?

So, yeah - I'm against the draft. On the other hand, if such form of draft was reintroduced - why would women be exempt from it? Why should the aforementioned anxious and clumsy boy be considered obligated to serve, while fit and mentally balanced women would not? This makes neither ethical or practical sense...

As for the possibility of such draft being reintroduced in Poland - we might not need it, but you need to remember that our government is severely right-wing *and* (hypocritically enough) quite enamoured with the ruling methods of the old Communist regime. Jarosław Kaczyński (AKA the Chairman and the Saviour of the Nation) has already expressed opinion that compulsory military service is needed for building the national spirit etc. So...

I too am against forcing anyone to serve, but I'm also a realist. War is becoming less common, but it is still an issue, and for smaller countries (population wise, not necessarily size), the number of voluntary personnel is small. Consider that Poland has a population of 37,750,000, and of those numbers, only 164,000 personnel are active military, or less than 0.5% of the total population. The United States, as of the time of this writing, has 1,328,000 active personnel, out of a population of 331,900,000, or just over 0.4%. That trend of having approximately half a percent of your population active at any given time is what's crucial. For any voluntary force, you're always dependent on the population as a whole deciding they wish to actively participate in the military.

Should the United States be required to actively enable the draft, that 1.3 million number balloons to 15 million currently registered for the draft.

If war were actively based on numbers, then the United States would have roughly 1 soldier for every 2.5 people in Poland. But, we do not live in such a world anymore, hence why the United States hasn't had an active draft since 1973. But, in the event of a total war (which the world hasn't seen since WW2), then you need all hands on deck. There's just no getting around that sometimes you just need people to do the job.

Israel has compulsory military service, and women are included.  They do have exceptions for Palestinian residents, those who enter religious studies, very religious/traditional women, and of course those who are not physically and/or mentally fit.  I was unfortunately not able to find a good source for that in English, but that seems to be the gist of it.  But that's their culture.

Here in the US, women who wanted to serve had to fight to be able to.  For the longest time they could fill non combat rolls, but couldn't be in combat.  The popular argument was it would be a distraction to the men.  Not sexually, but the men would be protective of the women and not focused on the job at hand.  Since women have been allowed to serve rape has been a major issue, but that's another topic. 

I'm sure it also has to do with stereotypes.  Men are more physically fit.  They're bigger and stronger.  Women are too emotional to handle to job.  Women who have served have proved they could do it, but old fashioned thinking is probably going to be around for a while. 

Me... I hear bone spurs will get you out of a draft.  I actually have one.  I don't need to pay a doctor to lie for me, just tell them to x-ray my left arm, and it's pretty hard to miss.       

The issues the US armed services have had trying to integrate women into the service is a long and complicated one. While rape is a major problem certainly, there are a number of women who wind up getting pregnant while in service, which in and of itself becomes an issue since you can't send a pregnant woman into combat. For the Army/Marines/Air Force/Space Force, that's one thing since they tend to have forward operating bases, but what about the Navy? How do you get a pregnant woman off a vessel intending to be at sea for 3+ months? It becomes a logistical headache.

I have zero doubt a woman can do the job of a man in the military, even if men are physically stronger (on average, don't hate me for this). I wish I had better statistics on hand to see how women compare to men in combat operations, but as Azy pointed out, trying to get women into combat roles has been an uphill struggle, and I imagine it's going to take a few more constellations and the removal of a few ring knockers before we see any major change in current US doctrine.

[Oniya]

there are a number of women who wind up getting pregnant while in service, which in and of itself becomes an issue since you can't send a pregnant woman into combat. For the Army/Marines/Air Force/Space Force, that's one thing since they tend to have forward operating bases, but what about the Navy? How do you get a pregnant woman off a vessel intending to be at sea for 3+ months? It becomes a logistical headache.

Probably the same way that you'd get any crewman off that needed medical care above and beyond what the ship could provide.  Med-evac has been a thing for a long time.

[GloomCookie]

Probably the same way that you'd get any crewman off that needed medical care above and beyond what the ship could provide.  Med-evac has been a thing for a long time.

Maybe.

Consider if the ship is operating near hostile waters in a no-fly zone, and the ship can't readily leave due to their mission, such as being in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf? Then there's the South China Sea where depending on where the ship is operating might be beyond the range of helicopter support. The range on a US Navy MH-60R transport helicopter is 834km (520 miles) which limits operational flight time. The nearest US military base in the South China Sea is Cagayan in the Philippines, which does cover the bulk of the South China Sea but still leaves crucial areas where immediate evacuation of personnel can and will be dangerous or impossible.

[Oniya]

A similar argument could be made for the crewman that has - for example - suffered an injury resulting in amputation, with the added comment that a pregnant woman is more likely to be medically stable than said crewman while awaiting the necessary evac.

[Keelan]

A similar argument could be made for the crewman that has - for example - suffered an injury resulting in amputation, with the added comment that a pregnant woman is more likely to be medically stable than said crewman while awaiting the necessary evac.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Detailing/Deployability/Active-Duty-Pregnancy/#:~:text=Officer%20and%20Enlisted%20Service%20members,personal%20need%2C%20which%20warrant%20separation.

3.  All Pregnant Service Members:

     a.  May remain onboard a ship until the 20th week of pregnancy.  A Service member discovered to be pregnant while underway/deployed should be transferred ashore as soon as possible given the constraints of the ship’s location, current mission, next port call, health of the service member and/or unborn
child(ren), etc.

     b.  Should not be assigned to units that are deploying from the 20th week of pregnancy through 12 months following delivery and release from their medical providers.  Under no circumstance shall a pregnant Service member remain onboard past the 20th week of pregnancy without a waiver.

     c.  May continue to serve aboard ships while in port or during short underway periods, provided an evacuation capability exists and the time for medical evacuation is less than six hours to a treatment facility capable of evaluating and stabilizing obstetric emergencies; this requirement includes Temporary Additional Duty (TDY) orders.  The six-hour rule is not intended to allow pregnant Service members to operate routinely at sea, but rather to provide the CO flexibility during short underway periods, as described above.

[Oniya]

So there are already regulations and protocols in place.  Paperwork is likely to be a bitch, but that's always the case.

[Vekseid]

One thing of note is not all conscription needs to be war-related. In the US we have environmental projects that fall under the same authority.

Maybe.

Consider if the ship is operating near hostile waters in a no-fly zone, and the ship can't readily leave due to their mission, such as being in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf? Then there's the South China Sea where depending on where the ship is operating might be beyond the range of helicopter support. The range on a US Navy MH-60R transport helicopter is 834km (520 miles) which limits operational flight time. The nearest US military base in the South China Sea is Cagayan in the Philippines, which does cover the bulk of the South China Sea but still leaves crucial areas where immediate evacuation of personnel can and will be dangerous or impossible.

There is no foreseeable war in which the US operates naval forces beneath hostile airspace. If a ship is in the SCS when war breaks out, any routine orders go out the window. Either the US neutralizes China's missile assets, or that ship will no longer be on the surface of the SCS. One way or another. Someone being pregnant is going to be a tertiary concern.

Given the way the US has clowned Iranian and Russian platforms, no else is going to be enforcing a NFZ on the US in the next few decades.

[Captain Maltese]

Norway has had the draft for men since it came into existence as a nation, that is in 1905. Our armed forces are divided into an enlisted core (specialists, officers, various staff) and a drafted one; the proportions of these have varied a lot since the start. In the 1970s women were allowed to enlist, in the 1980s the first women were allowed to volunteer for the draft, in 2016 the draft became obligatory for all genders. Now, assuming the last numbers I found are correct, 29% of all positions in the armed forces are filled by women. As far as I can tell from media and from female relatives who have served, it is going swimmingly. Men and women live in the same rooms in the barracks, do the same jobs, and the percentage of women completing their service period is actually slightly higher than the male one. There has been a few abuse cases, but compared to what is reported from perfectly normal civilian schools the numbers are way lower.

The draft in Norway is somewhat different from some other countries, but these things were introduced long before women arrived and did not change with them. We serve one year in the ranks, then is transferred to the reserves. The drafted never serve outside the country's borders. And while everyone are eligible for service, the actual number of drafted is very small and only the very best are picked. In reality there is wild competition for being picked among those who are fittest, smartest and fastest and some start training hard an entire year before the draft picks are done. Don't want to get drafted? Just show up on pick day and say you aren't interested, and you are free to go. This is very different from my generation, where 3 out of 4 men had to serve and very many were not wanting to serve.

Our armed forces were always small. Why go for draft when full enlistment could have filled up the same uniforms in peacetime? The answer is, we are not planning for peacetime. If war does come across our borders AGAIN, that peacetime army will balloon up ten times in size in a day as we have a large number of trained reserves to draw on. Other countries, like USA with almost a hundred time as many citizens, do not have the same concern of being invaded. Or the experience of being occupied. But for us, this is the only way we can protect our land. I can think nothing better than that our women can stand guard side by side with our men.

[Clio]

I am against conscription, mandatory service, and drafts for a variety of reasons (human rights, religious beliefs, war being...you know...bad overall), but IF there is to be a draft, then I don't think it should make a distinction based on gender. If a woman or AFAB person is able-bodied and does not have an exemption based on beliefs (like Quakers, Amish, etc...) then there's no reason not to. I am ineligible due to a few of things (disability, Quaker, age), but any "argument" used to discredit feminism should be carefully viewed. I am also acknowledging that I'm saying this as someone who would not have to serve, and my view is not nearly as valuable or applicable as those who would be eligible. This is also based on the assumption that they will be treated equal...and unfortunately, we know they will not.

It is a complex issue, and there are a variety of reasons that women and trans people especially are often unsafe in the military (at least in the American military). These things NEED to be addressed before they start forcing people of more vulnerable demographics into situations where they would be in danger. I'm not speaking of combat, as all genders face danger there. I am speaking of the rape culture and sexual harassment that is rampant.

So although at the core, I don't believe drafts should be gendered, I also think they need drastic reform first. And, of course, I don't think there should ever be a draft at all. I would protest against it if it ever happened. The massive military culture of the US is another issue that needs addressing, but I suppose we're lucky in a way that a draft has not been needed since Vietnam and there is no prediction that one will ever (hopefully) be reinstated.

[RedRose]

There's no way I could have handled a dorm life that would be mixed personally (beliefs, culture, call it what you like). But again I'm vehemently against mandatory army, unless it's a life or death sitch. AND if you like it to happen, you should be able to accommodate people's needs. Which might be impossible, hence my being vehemently against it.

[Clio]

There's no way I could have handled a dorm life that would be mixed personally (beliefs, culture, call it what you like). But again I'm vehemently against mandatory army, unless it's a life or death sitch. AND if you like it to happen, you should be able to accommodate people's needs. Which might be impossible, hence my being vehemently against it.

That's totally valid. And I understand that many people have super valid reasons that they're against it. Plus, I'm always speaking in hypotheticals as I mentioned I'm vehemently against drafts or mandatory service. Even in a life or death situation, I can understand offering incentive...but it would be a hard sell based on my human rights beliefs. I think the main thing I was getting at is that things like this are often used to discredit feminism as a whole, and although it's a flawed argument, I can see how this would allow many people to continue their outdated views on gender.

All in all, it's a super complex situation that is way above my pay grade. XD

[Silk]

I don't like the idea of the draft, but if things are so dire that it's become required then everyone should be pitching in to the ability that they are able.

[CopperLily]

Personally, I'm against conscription, and the handful of military officers I've talked to about it over the years all look fairly queasy when the idea gets brought up. But given it exists, I think the only defensible position to take is that it should be universal. There's also a pragmatic aspect to this belief - women being part of the draft doubles the pool of people who have a direct stake in keeping the draft from being reinstated, and exploits old patriarchal squeamishness about someone's daughter going to war.

[Chulanowa]

Really? Let's think about that for a moment. If things are "so dire" but nobody is "pitching in," then who, exactly, is it "dire" for?

If the populace is so unwilling to take up arms voluntarily, then who, exactly, is the fight being fought for?

If the people understand that their interests are not actually involved, and so do not wish to risk their lives and well-being for it, then why the lust to force them to do so?

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so, then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

I don't like the idea of the draft, but if things are so dire that it's become required then everyone should be pitching in to the ability that they are able.

[Oniya]

I think part of the artificial dilemma is that people assume 'draft/conscription' means 'sending to the front line with a gun'.  There were and are numerous support positions in the military.  While it's a fictional milieu, take a look at all of the different positions shown on M*A*S*H:  Guy in the mess tent?  He was drafted.  All the doctors and nurses?  Drafted.  Company clerk?  Drafted.  Army chaplain?  Most likely.  Mechanics in the auto pool?  Yep.

Could these people pick up a gun and defend themselves?  Most likely.  They weren't brought in to do that, though.

[CopperLily]

I think part of the artificial dilemma is that people assume 'draft/conscription' means 'sending to the front line with a gun'.  There were and are numerous support positions in the military.  While it's a fictional milieu, take a look at all of the different positions shown on M*A*S*H:  Guy in the mess tent?  He was drafted.  All the doctors and nurses?  Drafted.  Company clerk?  Drafted.  Army chaplain?  Most likely.  Mechanics in the auto pool?  Yep.

Could these people pick up a gun and defend themselves?  Most likely.  They weren't brought in to do that, though.

One of the problems is that in our two most recent generation-long wars, "Front Line" and "Not Front Line" positions got more than a little blurry.

[Keelan]

Really? Let's think about that for a moment. If things are "so dire" but nobody is "pitching in," then who, exactly, is it "dire" for?

If the populace is so unwilling to take up arms voluntarily, then who, exactly, is the fight being fought for?

If the people understand that their interests are not actually involved, and so do not wish to risk their lives and well-being for it, then why the lust to force them to do so?

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so, then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

I'm having a really hard time reading this as anything other than "Well if the people won't put up a fight of their own volition, then they deserve to be crushed"

Can you clarify your stance here?

[Chulanowa]

I'm having a really hard time reading this as anything other than "Well if the people won't put up a fight of their own volition, then they deserve to be crushed"

Can you clarify your stance here?

Really. You looked at what I wrote, and came away with a nearly inverse reading of it?

That's genuinely fascinating.

Anyway, that sounds like a struggle well above my pay grade to address. What I wrote is still where I left it, feel freed to keep working on it.

[Oniya]

Looks like a fairly accurate description of your last paragraph's 'if A then B' statement:

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so,

"Well if the people won't put up a fight of their own volition,

then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

then they deserve to be crushed"

[Chulanowa]

Looks like a fairly accurate description of your last paragraph's 'if A then B' statement:

Wow, you're right. How foolish of me to assume I know my own statement better than someone else. Imagine a dumbfuck like me choosing to use one word as the object of a sentence, not realizing that I actually meant a completely different word which totally changes the meaning of that sentence. Because I'm too stupid and inept to understand my own point and just completely fucked it up. Thank goodness you and Keelan were here to set me straight and show me the words I actually meant, and the meaning I actually intended.

Thank you.

[Oniya]

Perhaps with your superior grammar and logic, you can actually make an explanation instead of blathering on. 

[Chulanowa]

Perhaps with your superior grammar and logic, you can actually make an explanation instead of blathering on.

I don't need to though. That would just be dignifying someone's dishonest and bad-faith misrepresentation of what I said.

Now if staff is done trying to needle me into engagement with someone I don't want any further engagement with, can we move on?

[GloomCookie]

I think the issue isn't so much that people need to be compelled to fight for their nation but more putting people into a much more defined hierarchy than a militia. Militias by their nature are rather fluid and don't have much in the way of organization, and so there can often be disagreements that lead to arguments and fighting within the ranks. An actual military structure, meanwhile, means that there's a very clear chain of command and that orders coming down from on high put people where they need to be, leading to a more effective resistance movement.

In addition, the Geneva Convention states that prisoners captured in uniform must be offered the protections of being combatants due to their wearing of a uniform, while militia are not. This means it can actually be somewhat safer for a uniformed combatant if they surrender and get captured. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.

And my final point is that a lot of people want to defend their homes, but they run into a legitimate problem of who stays behind to take care of family? Not just wives and children, but the elderly who need the young and able bodied to get around and go places like the doctor. What happens to grandma if all her grandchildren are off at war? It's an unfortunate situation to be in, but there are some people who absolutely must be told that their nation needs them more than their grandma does, which is a tragedy itself but if the situation is indeed dire enough, then it will happen.

There are always going to be draft dodgers, protests, even riots. People can and do protest wars because they are opposed to them on both moral and practical grounds, since many people don't want to be drafted to go off to war. Both sides are right for different reasons, which is why a volunteer military is the best option, since then people who are willing and able to join will do so and the normal population can avoid the draft.

Like many topics, there isn't a good black and white answer.

[greenknight]

In addition, the Geneva Convention states that prisoners captured in uniform must be offered the protections of being combatants due to their wearing of a uniform, while militia are not. This means it can actually be somewhat safer for a uniformed combatant if they surrender and get captured. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.

This is not a true statement. See First Geneva Convention, Art. 13 Protected Persons. Militias, provided they meet structural criteria, are protected (part (2)). Civilians who take up arms at the approach of the enemy are likewise protected and are to be afforded all protections of other combatants, uniform or not (part (6)).
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-13

[RedRose]

Gloomcookie, there's a movie about a kid whose dad has gone at war, mom is drowning, kid is basically free ranging in Paris and getting into worse and worse trouble.

[GloomCookie]

This is not a true statement. See First Geneva Convention, Art. 13 Protected Persons. Militias, provided they meet structural criteria, are protected (part (2)). Civilians who take up arms at the approach of the enemy are likewise protected and are to be afforded all protections of other combatants, uniform or not (part (6)).
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-13

However, the third Geneva convention prohibits civilians from engaging in combat operations unless they meet the requirements of levee en masse, which is covered under 3rd Geneva Convention Article 4A(6) which states that levee en masse is only applicable during the initial invasion of a country when there is insufficient time to organize into militias and individuals may perform combat operations as lone individuals. After the period of invasion they lose the protections of levee en masse and are treated as civilians and are thus not offered the protections of other parts of the convention for prisoners of war. There is a lot of argument about if it is still applicable, but as of right now it is considered in force.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-4/commentary/2020?activeTab=undefined

Gloomcookie, there's a movie about a kid whose dad has gone at war, mom is drowning, kid is basically free ranging in Paris and getting into worse and worse trouble.

Ok? But if he's not actively taking up arms or acting as a saboteur, then he isn't covered under article 4.

[greenknight]

That is from the Red Cross's commentary and interpretation, not the text of the treaty. This commentary, in fact, seems to be justification for the "unlawful combatant" label in fashion in the last two decades. It is an egregiously dangerous interpretation.

[GloomCookie]

In my line of work we do have commentary that's not official but still used to influence decisions. The fact this commentary points to civilians under certain circumstances as not being protected by the provisions of Article 4 still stands as an interpretation. If war crimes are brought against a group for violating the rules, the official wording and the interpretation both are used as basis for both sides, similar to how supreme court decisions can be used as the basis of legal defense.

I don't like it, but it is what it is. Most international war crimes tribunals would look at the interpretation as part of their rulings.

[greenknight]

I am ashamed of the ICRC for publishing this interpretation. This is an ex post facto endorsement of a change in US policy in this century. It is not how the subject was regarded previously.

[Regina Minx]

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so, then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

Really. You looked at what I wrote, and came away with a nearly inverse reading of it?

That's genuinely fascinating.

Anyway, that sounds like a struggle well above my pay grade to address. What I wrote is still where I left it, feel freed to keep working on it.

Wow, you're right. How foolish of me to assume I know my own statement better than someone else. Imagine a dumbfuck like me choosing to use one word as the object of a sentence, not realizing that I actually meant a completely different word which totally changes the meaning of that sentence. Because I'm too stupid and inept to understand my own point and just completely fucked it up. Thank goodness you and Keelan were here to set me straight and show me the words I actually meant, and the meaning I actually intended.

I don't need to though. That would just be dignifying someone's dishonest and bad-faith misrepresentation of what I said.

In this panel from webomic XKCD, the main character (known as Cueball) is upset that people are mad at him because they misunderstand what he's saying and come to an incorrect conclusion about his meaning. Cueball's source of irritation is his belief that since, in his mind, he's being perfectly clear, it's not his fault that people don't understand what he's saying. The off-screen voice sarcastically agrees with him and gives him kudos for the one-person activity known as communication.

The joke here, of course, is that communication is not complete until the message has been received and understood. Cueball is refusing to take responsibility for his part in the partnership between sender and receiver. An escalation of the joke of this panel could be achieved by showing in subsequent panels Cueball having become incredulous if someone was to ask for clarification of his message, engage in sarcastic rhetoric by calling himself a dumb fuck or that he's not being paid enough to elaborate on his misinterpreted message, and then refuse to elaborate when others challenge him to do so while also accusing listeners of a bad faith, deliberate misunderstanding.

The author of the webcomic has a theme of the responsibility of the speaker for how they are interpreted. You can see that in issues 169, 1028, 1860, and 1911. Here, perhaps, is the least subtle declaration that people who put all responsibility for their wording on the receiver are not, in fact, great communicators.

To circle back to Beorning's original point, mandatory military service is practiced in quite a few nations throughout the world. In the vast majority of those nations, only men must serve. I'm going to add my voice to the choir here and say that I agree that if it's something that a particular society agrees must be done, I can't see a good argument restricting it to men only. I don't think it comes across as some MRA argument to say that women should be conscripted if men are as well. At one point in history in the US, women were not allowed to serve on juries. It wasn't an anti-feminist act to extend jury duty to include women as well.

[Chulanowa]

I love webcomics. There's this one from David Malki's "Wondermark" where a sea lion continually bothers a Victorian couple despite their demands that it go away. So silly.

Anyway.

The original question is kind of a strange one really; if there's a frankly terrible idea, which mandates forced service by unwilling people, is it "only fair" that it not be segregated by gender? Is equal-opportunity exploitation something to be considered a social achievement? In my measure it's more of a backwards slide; the goal should be moving away from the exploitation, not making it "more inclusive."

[Regina Minx]

The original question is kind of a strange one really; if there's a frankly terrible idea, which mandates forced service by unwilling people, is it "only fair" that it not be segregated by gender? Is equal-opportunity exploitation something to be considered a social achievement? In my measure it's more of a backwards slide; the goal should be moving away from the exploitation, not making it "more inclusive."

I can't think of a meaningful way in which jury duty does not "mandate forced service by unwilling people," to use your words. Do you similarly believe we ought to move away from the "exploitation" of forcing people to serve on juries, or does this only apply to mandatory military service? And if so, why?

[Chulanowa]

I can't think of a meaningful way in which jury duty does not "mandate forced service by unwilling people," to use your words. Do you similarly believe we ought to move away from the "exploitation" of forcing people to serve on juries, or does this only apply to mandatory military service? And if so, why?

Jury duty isn't exploitative. When you go to the juror pool, if you are selected to serve on the jury, no one is making a turnaround on your time and $7/day compensation. It might be annoying and frustrating, but it is a pretty good example of a genuinely necessary service to society as a whole.

The same can't be said of the military. It is exploitative at every level, from the fact that entry recruits are paid below minimum wage, to the lying and propaganda used to garner recruits, all the way up to reality that militaries mostly exist to generate wealth for private entities at great public expense. This is all without considering the realities of an actual war and the impact that has on literally everyone involved.

[Keelan]

The same can't be said of the military. It is exploitative at every level, from the fact that entry recruits are paid below minimum wage [...]

False, at least in the US: Lowest level recruit is an E1, pay is $23,011.20 found here (other branches have similar rates): https://www.goarmy.com/benefits/while-you-serve/money-pay.html

$23,011.20 / 52 Weeks = $442.52/Week, /40hrs = $11.06/hr

Federal Minimum wage is $7.25 found here: https://www.usa.gov/minimum-wage

Also, the above pay rate is lower than only around 20 states/DC minimum wages, but higher than the other 30ish: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state

This also does not factor in stipends for off-base housing and food, or free on-base housing and dining, combat/hazard pay, signing bonuses, reduced prices for items purchased on-base, etc.

[greenknight]

Soldiers are salaried employees, so minimum wage is $685/week. However, even recruits get at least the equivalent of over $1100 after tax housing and subsistence benefits per month, driving their $1773/month into the $3000 equivalent range. All of this is, of course, rather fuzzy as US military compensation isn't directly relatable to civilian compensation. Estimates have to be made, resulting in varying truth values based on the accuracy of the estimates.

[Chulanowa]

$23,011.20 / 52 Weeks = $442.52/Week, /40hrs = $11.06/hr

Federal Minimum wage is $7.25 found here: https://www.usa.gov/minimum-wage

Does the recruit clock in at 9, clock out at 5, and have weekends off? I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there's substantial differences between joining the military and working at a Denny's.

(On the other hand probably substantial similarities if we replace Denny's with Waffle House...)

[Regina Minx]

Jury duty isn't exploitative. When you go to the juror pool, if you are selected to serve on the jury, no one is making a turnaround on your time and $7/day compensation. It might be annoying and frustrating, but it is a pretty good example of a genuinely necessary service to society as a whole.

"Exploitative" wasn't part of the description you gave. And depending on whether or not the jury is for a civil case in which damages are being sought, someone may in fact be making a turnaround on the verdict I return as a juror. But I suspect your reply buries the lede and the 'genuinely necessary service' is the most important part of what you said.

If we agree that necessary service to society as a whole is a fair case for compelling service, now we're in the situation where we consider whether or not that obligation should be denied to certain classes of society. If we said that only black people had to perform mandatory military service...or that black people were not required to perform mandatory military service, we're in an equally untenable position. There’s a fundamental dissonance between pursuing equal opportunity and being unable to bear equal responsibility. Throughout the past 100 years, women have worked hard to expand their rights and opportunities in American society. Exposing female American citizens to the draft ensures an equal sharing of citizenship’s burdens.

Does the recruit clock in at 9, clock out at 5, and have weekends off? I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there's substantial differences between joining the military and working at a Denny's.

There's a difference between being on call 24/7 and actually working 24/7. With the exception of mandatory PT, most of my friends in the armed services tell me that their workday is 8-10 hours, but with considerable amounts of downtime. But you also neglect to consider that the military not only provides high levels of benefits, but also 30 days of paid leave per year, which is not a thing required by law of any company that pays minimum wage.

[Keelan]

Soldiers are salaried employees, so minimum wage is $685/week. However, even recruits get at least the equivalent of over $1100 after tax housing and subsistence benefits per month, driving their $1773/month into the $3000 equivalent range. All of this is, of course, rather fuzzy as US military compensation isn't directly relatable to civilian compensation. Estimates have to be made, resulting in varying truth values based on the accuracy of the estimates.

I honestly did forget that Salaried is treated differently, and also that it was increased from $455. In my defense, I *did* stop paying attention to how little they were required to pay me by law just prior to 2020 in a general shift in perspective.

You did motivate me to go looking for general benefits evaluation, and the Navy one was the best I could find: https://www.navy.com/what-to-expect/military-pay-and-benefits

E-1 Pay Grade works out to $1917.63 after Basic, with an apparent estimate of $3634.54/month average benefits which per the site is "based on an average of salary, housing & food allowances and health coverage with dependents"

Looking up BAS, that's $452.56 for the food cost ($2370.19 with pay), available here: https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Allowances/BAS.aspx

Looking up BAH, had to use a calculator ( https://www.travel.dod.mil/Allowances/Basic-Allowance-for-Housing/BAH-Rate-Lookup/ ) and used Charleston SC's Joint Base, which gave me $1614 for an E-1 with no Dependents ($3984.19 with pay and BAS), though this number seems to vary depending on area.

This leaves approximately $1567.98 in outstanding benefits for that average, which I presume to be the 'health coverage' and/or the 'with dependents'.

So, ignoring the health coverage part since that's not concrete: using hard numbers for if you're Navy E-1 in Charleston, SC your wage+benefits is at least $3984.19 per month, or $47,810.28/year.

If it's your first year, your first 4 months is prorated at to like 1.7k instead, so it'd only be $46.5k-$47k

Additionally:

Hardship Duty Pay is $50-$150/month
Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay is $225/month
Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay is variable per month
Assignment Incentive Pay is also variable per month

All per that same DoD site, and I will say that I am surprised how low some of these ones are.

There's a difference between being on call 24/7 and actually working 24/7. With the exception of mandatory PT, most of my friends in the armed services tell me that their workday is 8-10 hours, but with considerable amounts of downtime. But you also neglect to consider that the military not only provides high levels of benefits, but also 30 days of paid leave per year, which is not a thing required by law of any company that pays minimum wage.

This is largely the case for non-combat deployments and assignments, as someone I know in active duty has informed me. Combat  deployments and being deployed to at-sea vessels get more complicated given the nature of the beast, but that is not the case for the overwhelming majority and both of those scenarios receive pay increases by my understanding.

It also does not encompass the majority of deployments or assignments from what I can tell.

[Chulanowa]

"Exploitative" wasn't part of the description you gave. And depending on whether or not the jury is for a civil case in which damages are being sought, someone may in fact be making a turnaround on the verdict I return as a juror. But I suspect your reply buries the lede and the 'genuinely necessary service' is the most important part of what you said.

I mean we were both talking about exploitation.

Think of it as the difference between having your kid wash dishes after dinner, and children working in a restaurant. One is chores for upkeep of a shared home, the other is labor for someone else's profit. One is a necessity, the other is an exploitation.

If we agree that necessary service to society as a whole is a fair case for compelling service, now we're in the situation where we consider whether or not that obligation should be denied to certain classes of society. If we said that only black people had to perform mandatory military service...or that black people were not required to perform mandatory military service, we're in an equally untenable position. There’s a fundamental dissonance between pursuing equal opportunity and being unable to bear equal responsibility. Throughout the past 100 years, women have worked hard to expand their rights and opportunities in American society. Exposing female American citizens to the draft ensures an equal sharing of citizenship’s burdens.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear:

The same can't be said of the military.

Meaning that unlike jury duty, the military is not a necessary service.

[Regina Minx]

Meaning that unlike jury duty, the military is not a necessary service.

Almost everyone that's weighed in on this thread with an opinion has granted it as a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Should there be a draft is not the same question as if we are to have a draft, should we draft women as well. If you don't want to discuss that and instead say we shouldn't have a draft in the first place...ok. But that's not really what we're talking about.

[greenknight]

Looking up BAS, that's $452.56 for the food cost ($2370.19 with pay), available here: https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Allowances/BAS.aspx
Looking up BAH, had to use a calculator ( https://www.travel.dod.mil/Allowances/Basic-Allowance-for-Housing/BAH-Rate-Lookup/ ) and used Charleston SC's Joint Base, which gave me $1614 for an E-1 with no Dependents ($3984.19 with pay and BAS), though this number seems to vary depending on area.

For reference, non-locational BAH (i.e., the floor) is ~$700/month, or ~$930 with dependents. $452 is the regular BAS rate, doubled if absolutely no government messing and no refrigerated food storage is available (meaning the only mess option is prepared meals from a 3rd party). These must be treated as after-tax values as these benefits are taxable income from any other employer, hence part of the estimate of the linked benefits calculator.. Goods, services, and real estate as taxable compensation is why the Secret Service owns a condo in Trump Tower:

   
• one of Trump's employees received it as part of his compensation package and didn't report it.
• IRS took it as pat of the settlement of back taxes.
• Secret Service was running protective operations out of a response van parked outside Trump Towers because Trump demanded exorbitant rent for a site inside.
• USSS requested it as it was a better facility for their protective detail mission.

[Keelan]

For reference, non-locational BAH (i.e., the floor) is ~$700/month, or ~$930 with dependents. $452 is the regular BAS rate, doubled if absolutely no government messing and no refrigerated food storage is available (meaning the only mess option is prepared meals from a 3rd party). These must be treated as after-tax values as these benefits are taxable income from any other employer, hence part of the estimate of the linked benefits calculator.. Goods, services, and real estate as taxable compensation is why the Secret Service owns a condo in Trump Tower:

   
• one of Trump's employees received it as part of his compensation package and didn't report it.
• IRS took it as pat of the settlement of back taxes.
• Secret Service was running protective operations out of a response van parked outside Trump Towers because Trump demanded exorbitant rent for a site inside.
• USSS requested it as it was a better facility for their protective detail mission.

That is correct on the Transit/Non-Locational amount; I had not noticed that part, found a DoD explanation here: https://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/allowances/bah_types.aspx

Seems to be primarily about in-transit for Active Duty however so not the best marker perhaps? With barracks living I presume falling under Partial? Makes it harder to calculate benefit using partial though; the low cost of $6.90 is largely due to the fact that the government isn't having to provide you with funds to pay for off-base housing as they're providing the housing. Yet, we could probably calculate the financial equivalent for the 'benefit' of the provided barracks living? I don't have enough background in tax and/or accounting and stuff for much more beyond this though...

...why the fuck am I having fun trying to figure this shit out? Then again my favorite part of work involves going through spreadsheets filled with metadata...

[greenknight]

Partial BAH is basically to cover toilet paper and scouring powder, things the unit supply system covers for other buildings. But you're still getting the benefit of employer provided housing, which for any other employer is a taxable compensation at the market value of the housing. In this case, the best estimate of that value for general discussion is probably nonlocational BAH.

[Keelan]

Partial BAH is basically to cover toilet paper and scouring powder, things the unit supply system covers for other buildings. But you're still getting the benefit of employer provided housing, which for any other employer is a taxable compensation at the market value of the housing. In this case, the best estimate of that value for general discussion is probably nonlocational BAH.

That makes sense, and funny you mention that because according to an active Airforce/Spaceforce an E-1 would likely be required to be in barracks housing so that would be the more accurate calculation. He also mentioned that E-2 is 6 months time in service but we can ignore that for the moment since this keeps things simpler for calculation.

So 1917.63 + 700.80 + 452.56 =3070.99/month *12 = $36851.88/year

For your first year, months 1-4 however are at 1695.00, which would subtract 890.52 from year one for a first year of $35961.36 (and does not include healthcare benefits as mentioned before)

Meanwhile 685/week * 52 = $35620/year

Substantially closer given more realistic circumstances sans the E-2 promotion since I'm not sure when the pay increase would actually kick in. And of course BAS and BAH aren't taxable but for the civilian sector it would be as you keep noting greenknight (thank you very much by the way ^_^)

At least I *think* that's where we'd ultimately leave off?

[greenknight]

Note, it's $1773/month for the first four months for an E-1. The $1695 figure is for last year, IIRC.

[Keelan]

Note, it's $1773/month for the first four months for an E-1. The $1695 figure is for last year, IIRC.

So +78/month *4 = +312 to the First-year rate for $36273.35, thank you again! ^_^

[Chulanowa]

Almost everyone that's weighed in on this thread with an opinion has granted it as a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Should there be a draft is not the same question as if we are to have a draft, should we draft women as well. If you don't want to discuss that and instead say we shouldn't have a draft in the first place...ok. But that's not really what we're talking about.

Q: "is it fair that only men are drafted?"
A: "It is unfair that anyone be drafted."

Q: "Should women be drafted too, to make it more fair?"
A: "Expanding exploitation in the name of inclusivity is a harebraned notion"

Seems like valid responses to me. But of course I may be biased on that regard  :-)

One really can't have a discussion about conscription without confronting the question of conscription itself, though. Especially if the core of the question is equality or fairness.

[Oniya]

Almost everyone that's weighed in on this thread with an opinion has granted it as a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Should there be a draft is not the same question as if we are to have a draft, should we draft women as well. If you don't want to discuss that and instead say we shouldn't have a draft in the first place...ok. But that's not really what we're talking about.

So, funfact:  Although the Selective Service was reintroduced in the US in 1980, it's been literally 50 years since the last draft ended in 1973.  So that's over fifty years since someone said 'Hey, we don't have enough people volunteering for the military.  Let's compel people to leave their homes, jobs, and helpless elders/children to get shot at.'

[Regina Minx]

So, funfact:  Although the Selective Service was reintroduced in the US in 1980, it's been literally 50 years since the last draft ended in 1973.  So that's over fifty years since someone said 'Hey, we don't have enough people volunteering for the military.  Let's compel people to leave their homes, jobs, and helpless elders/children to get shot at.'

True enough as far as it goes for the USA. Beorning opened the talk with a mention of Latvia and Poland because they are considering re-instituting mandatory military service in light of Russia. We have been using the terms 'draft,' 'conscription,' and 'mandatory military service' more or less interchangeably here. Worldwide, there are something like 80+ nations with required military service, of which I'm familiar with two in light of my own research; Israel and Finland.

Finland has universal male conscription of men above the age of 18 for service of up to 1 year, and roughly 80% of the population has served or is serving. The reasons for Finland's high rate of mandatory military service are obvious with a basic knowledge of geography and history. Israel has far more carve-outs than I understand is typical, Arab citizens are exempted by request, and ultra-Orthodox Jews are also exempted under Tal laws.

[Oniya]

True enough as far as it goes for the USA. Beorning opened the talk with a mention of Latvia and Poland because they are considering re-instituting mandatory military service in light of Russia. We have been using the terms 'draft,' 'conscription,' and 'mandatory military service' more or less interchangeably here. Worldwide, there are something like 80+ nations with required military service, of which I'm familiar with two in light of my own research; Israel and Finland.

Finland has universal male conscription of men above the age of 18 for service of up to 1 year, and roughly 80% of the population has served or is serving. The reasons for Finland's high rate of mandatory military service are obvious with a basic knowledge of geography and history. Israel has far more carve-outs than I understand is typical, Arab citizens are exempted by request, and ultra-Orthodox Jews are also exempted under Tal laws.

Agreed.  However things like the US minimum wage (which still sucks) vs. military pay would be a bit of a distraction, since the US shows no signs of reinstating an actual 'draft'. 

Now, the compensation/minimum wages of these other countries might indeed be a consideration.

[GloomCookie]

I mean we were both talking about exploitation.

Think of it as the difference between having your kid wash dishes after dinner, and children working in a restaurant. One is chores for upkeep of a shared home, the other is labor for someone else's profit. One is a necessity, the other is an exploitation.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear:
Meaning that unlike jury duty, the military is not a necessary service.

This line doesn't sit well with me.

How would the people of Ukraine feel right now if you walked up to them and said "I don't think we need a military." Their homes are being invaded by an outside, hostile military and they are requiring military service.

Trying to say that because war is bad we should not prepare for war is a naive position to take. Every single nation on this planet has a military of some capacity, serving roles from national defense to policing duties. The US Coast Guard is one branch of the military and they serve numerous duties from repairing and maintaining navigational buoys and beacons to intercepting illegal shipments of narcotics. The US Navy operates two hospital ships that it sails around the world to assist with natural disasters and just helping people in general. The Air Force maintains specialist aircraft to fly into hurricanes to gather much needed weather data for scientists. DARPA and other similar organizations have made their research available to the general public giving us numerous inventions including the internet.

Militaries are not all about war. Yes, they must prepare for and train for war as part of their duties, but they are not a one-dimensional force of evil. Many recruits receive the GI bill, which they use to get college education which helps them go on to achieve success in the civilian world. They get benefits that aren't available to the average citizen because they served.

Sorry if this ruffles your feathers, but I feel like claiming the military isn't a necessary service is very, very short sighted.

[Chulanowa]

I'm pretty sure it's not my feathers ruffled here.

There's a distinction between "useful" and "necessary" (maybe "essential" would have been a better word choice for my point.) A fighting force has a use for sure. However, compared to the example given (Jury service) it's certainly not essential; you're always going to need jurors. You're not always going to need a standing military.

[Beorning]

Well, to be honest, a justice system can work without jurors, too. Not every country uses juries for trials.

[Regina Minx]

I'm pretty sure it's not my feathers ruffled here.

There's a distinction between "useful" and "necessary" (maybe "essential" would have been a better word choice for my point.) A fighting force has a use for sure. However, compared to the example given (Jury service) it's certainly not essential; you're always going to need jurors. You're not always going to need a standing military.

Now we've taken a side trip into the 'what is needed/necessary/useful and the distinction between them is somehow important' dimension. Much like condoms, it's better to have and not need a fighting force than to need and not have a fighting force.

[Chulanowa]

Now we've taken a side trip into the 'what is needed/necessary/useful and the distinction between them is somehow important' dimension. Much like condoms, it's better to have and not need a fighting force than to need and not have a fighting force.

Yeah that side trip will happen when you compare military conscription to jury duty.

Well, to be honest, a justice system can work without jurors, too. Not every country uses juries for trials.

True enough, I suppose.

[Regina Minx]

Yeah that side trip will happen when you compare military conscription to jury duty.

Because comparing two things that have similarities between them is often a useful technique for thought and debate. Your response has been to identify differences, real or imagined, between them and say compulsory jury duty is A-OK but compulsory military service is awful. I've not been persuaded that the differences are in fact meaningful, and I also pointed out that most people responding to the question have already done the 'if' part of the hypothetical for purposes of the discussion. Since you, to date, have not, I'm guessing you won't so...ok. Good talk.

[Chulanowa]

Because comparing two things that have similarities between them is often a useful technique for thought and debate. Your response has been to identify differences, real or imagined, between them and say compulsory jury duty is A-OK but compulsory military service is awful. I've not been persuaded that the differences are in fact meaningful, and I also pointed out that most people responding to the question have already done the 'if' part of the hypothetical for purposes of the discussion. Since you, to date, have not, I'm guessing you won't so...ok. Good talk.

It has been a delight.

[Forsaken]

If women truly want equal rights then they should also accept the bad parts of being a man which are far more than you might think! So conscription should also apply to women.

[GloomCookie]

Perhaps. Or, maybe there are distinct differences that should be considered that could lend them to other duties, like rear support. There's no one-size-fits-all solution but I also don't think it should be all or nothing. Definitely need a little more nuance than just a blanket statement of tossing people into the deep end right off the bat.

[Missy]

I think it's worth noting a lot of modern technology mitigates the differences in terms of body size and average physical strength.

[Forsaken]

Perhaps. Or, maybe there are distinct differences that should be considered that could lend them to other duties, like rear support. There's no one-size-fits-all solution but I also don't think it should be all or nothing. Definitely need a little more nuance than just a blanket statement of tossing people into the deep end right off the bat.

What do you think has happened to millions of men? They get conscripted, trained then sent to the meat grinder.

Besides Russia had female frontline soldiers in WW2 and Israel also has female frontline soldiers..

[GloomCookie]

I think it's worth noting a lot of modern technology mitigates the differences in terms of body size and average physical strength.

To a degree. A lot of military training still requires soldiers to train for the possibility that in the field, they will not have technology to render aid, like a mobile crane. They do a lot of stuff with strong backs, so to a degree there is still a need for raw physical strength that, on average, a man will have more of than the average woman. There are obviously exceptions, but that's on the whole.

What do you think has happened to millions of men? They get conscripted, trained then sent to the meat grinder.

Besides Russia had female frontline soldiers in WW2 and Israel also has female frontline soldiers..

Modern US tactics and strategy doesn't use meat grinder tactics. US armed forces use combined arms to support each other such that if a unit comes under fire, they can receive reinforcement from artillery, air strikes, mortar, armored units, nearby infantry, etc. There is a major effort to medivac anyone who gets wounded, and there isn't a normal mindset of being unable to retreat. US forces know they can and often will fall back to a more advantageous position and call in support, not just grind away at the enemy until they all die. I know some militaries are different but even in smaller militaries, there isn't a meat-grinder mentality. A dead soldier is a dead soldier, while a wounded soldier can be healed and returned to the front. A war of attrition only works if you have overwhelming numbers compared to your opponent, and even then is reliant on ensuring that at the end of the day you still come out on top. The Russians have tried this tactic before and had it not been for the Allies pushing against another front, the numbers suggest that had it just been the Germans and Russians on the eastern front, Russia would have lost.

Raw numbers don't mean anything in a modern war. It's about training and quality of equipment, and the US excels at both. Most European militaries excel at both. The meat grinder doesn't work because it relies on the logical fallacy of "Quantity is a quality all it's own."  No, it isn't. If you have 100 tanks that are two generations out of date and 50 modern tanks, you'd be better off with the new tanks because they can run rings around the older tanks and do so with less fuel, less ammunition, less personnel, etc. Trying to grind those 50 tanks into the dirt doesn't work when those modern tanks might kill 4 of the older tanks for each one they lose. In a raw numbers game, the modern tanks still come out ahead because they can kill faster than they themselves are killed.

[Chulanowa]

I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are bringing into question the "all you need is better equipment!" mentality that has dominated US (and its allies') military stratagem for the last uh, sixty years. You know what throw Vietnam on that list too.

A cynical person might even say that this mentality is born out of weapons dealers and contractors having such heavy sway in the government of these nations, and plying politicians with fantastical notions of "cutting edge next-gen weapons"

I mean obviously better equipment helps, but I think it's a case of diminishing returns; a rifle with a digital readout and bluetooth feed into a visor is still just a rifle and the goatherd with a 40 year old AK-47 his dad looted off a Soviet infantryman is still perfectly able of putting a bullet into the soldier with the iGun.

[GloomCookie]

I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine are bringing into question the "all you need is better equipment!" mentality that has dominated US (and its allies') military stratagem for the last uh, sixty years. You know what throw Vietnam on that list too.

A cynical person might even say that this mentality is born out of weapons dealers and contractors having such heavy sway in the government of these nations, and plying politicians with fantastical notions of "cutting edge next-gen weapons"

I mean obviously better equipment helps, but I think it's a case of diminishing returns; a rifle with a digital readout and bluetooth feed into a visor is still just a rifle and the goatherd with a 40 year old AK-47 his dad looted off a Soviet infantryman is still perfectly able of putting a bullet into the soldier with the iGun.

The AK-47 is a rifle meant to be manufactured cheap and has such loose tolerances that it's a garbage weapon. The reason the US invested in the M14, M16, and later variants is because we could do far more with far less. But ok, sure, in guerilla warfare, you want cheap and I get that, but Saddam's army folded like a house of cards. There are reports of Iraqi troops surrendering to scout vehicles because they'd been hit so hard, so fast, they couldn't respond. The opening air campaign tore through radar coverage and obliterated Iraqi air defenses, and they knew we were coming. Like, I'm sorry, but you do not get much better than rolling up on a prepared military position and taking it in mere hours and nearly outrunning your own supply lines while going through the enemy lines.

But sure, the AK-47 is the best weapon ever because oh, you can drop it in mud then hand it to a toothless conscript you dug out of the wilderness somewhere who isn't sure how to properly bathe himself. Yes, diminishing returns and all that. In fact, I'm not gonna say much more, I'd rather turn it over to Keelan because they know where I'm going with this. There is a point, yes, where even a normal weapon that any civilian can get their hands on that they become effective, but that is usually using ambush tactics and then scurrying off into a hole somewhere hoping that you can outrun the world of hurt heading your way.

[Chulanowa]

But sure, the AK-47 is the best weapon ever because oh, you can drop it in mud then hand it to a toothless conscript you dug out of the wilderness somewhere who isn't sure how to properly bathe himself.

I didn't know we were giving AK's to the US Marine Corps  ;D

Nah man my point isn't some weird fetishization of the AK - in fact I'm agreeing with you, it's grungy as hell, probably works better as a bong than a rifle. I'm just saying it does work as a rifle and is still pretty good at killing someone, which is the basic function of a rifle.

But then you get goofiness like the OICW, which ended up with a 20 year old rifle that had a war crime with a digital readout on top, clipped together in a plastic casing designed specifically to make it look "space age." Like there's a point where you're just overdesigning shit and changing aesthetics to feul a market rather than to increase any effectiveness.