Commentary on: Conscription - For (Nazgûl Killer) vs. Against (the Black Prince) Commentary Thread

[Nazgûl Killer]

Thread link:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=349914

Well, tBP accepted my offer... Who here thinks I'm doomed?

[Stavroforos]

I think you are, Nazzy.

I was thinking of actual picking up the gauntlet, but there are cases where I can see it being beneficial and necessary, such as for example Israel. Plus I'd probably end up calling you a Jew and leaving the debate.

But I do look forward to actually following this one, should be a very interesting debate. Are you arguing for compulsory service in all nations? Or are you going to reveal that with your opening?

[Nazgûl Killer]

I think you are, Nazzy.

Well thanks for the vote of confidence...

<3

Plus I'd probably end up calling you a Jew

Yeah, and that's different from any other day? Scum.

But I do look forward to actually following this one, should be a very interesting debate. Are you arguing for compulsory service in all nations? Or are you going to reveal that with your opening?

I'm arguing for conscription. Bear with us though guys. This may be a very interesting debate, but due to real life constraints, tBP has informed me he will not be as active as the rest of us are - And I don't mind that, I hope you guys don't either.

[motiv-8]

Arguing for conscription in general? Or specifically within the context of various states? Because this context is important. For example, conscription simply would not be good for the United States, which has spent decades building its capabilities as well as foreign policy around the concept of a highly-professional, superbly-trained volunteer force. On the other hand, the redaction of conscription in a country such as Israel could have ramifications on security that could be disastrous.

[Jom]

Things I have learned from the debate so far: that Greenland is an excellent invasion target.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Arguing for conscription in general? Or specifically within the context of various states? Because this context is important. For example, conscription simply would not be good for the United States, which has spent decades building its capabilities as well as foreign policy around the concept of a highly-professional, superbly-trained volunteer force. On the other hand, the redaction of conscription in a country such as Israel could have ramifications on security that could be disastrous.

We will be arguing in general, and bring in examples from nations.

[Mightypeon]

Actually, Conscription => Bad quality is totally false. It does help to have a volunteer corps of "Unteroffiziere" (Seargents et. al), because beeing a good Seargent is not that easy to learn in 9 or so months.
WW2 British regarded themself as an "Army of Amateurs fighting professionals", while Britain initially was a volunteer army opposing Germanys Conscript Wehrmacht.
Btw: I am all for forcefully conscripting the Son of any countries defense minister for the term of that minister.

[Raglan]

a man/women who makes an informed decision to serve in the army knowing the risks that they may be asked to fight and die is a hero. A man/women who is forced into an army and made to fight and ends up dying has been murdered by the 'people' they are supposedly protecting.

[Nazgûl Killer]

a man/women who makes an informed decision to serve in the army knowing the risks that they may be asked to fight and die is a hero. A man/women who is forced into an army and made to fight and ends up dying has been murdered by the 'people' they are supposedly protecting.

What? How exactly? Care to elaborate on that, honestly foolish, statement?

Seriously, people, if you're going to make statements that are controversial or just foolish, you should elaborate, add some sources or at least do anything to not make a complete fool of yourself.

It's pretty stupid to say that a soldier which voluntarily joined the armed forces won't die while a soldier from a conscription service would. Was I asleep when they made the "Invulnerability drug to all those who volunteer for the armed forces!" invention?

Seriously, Raglan, I like you so it makes me sorry to say this, but your statement was outrageously stupid and honestly made me cringe. Not only do you assume that a conscription soldier would 100% end up dead while a volunteer won't, you also assume that the same conscription soldier would be killed by the civilians whom he protects.
Not to mention you bring absolutely no proof behind your statement, no sources nor anything else that would support your ludicrous claim.

Explanation.

[Raglan]

no i wasn't saying anything like that, its just my opinon. Being in the army, or navy or whatever carries with it certain risks, and while it is certainly sad if a volunteer dies, he had a choice and made an informed decision with knowledge about the risks. But someone forced to fight and die, well that i consider as unlawful taking of their life. They didn't choose the risk so didn't choose the possible consiquences of that risk. Its sad in both circumstances whether voluntary or not, but i consider the state forcing someone to do something where they die the same as murder. Just my opinion.

[Tankbuster]

I'd very much like it if you would exit the frame of mind and of thought saying that conscripted forces are lesser in quality, as they surely aren't.
USA, the most powerful nation in the world when it comes to military terms, has managed to submit Iraq's full forces in 2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991, meaning around 6-7 months.

Israel, one of the most puny nations on the globe, managed to defeat four armies, mounting in almost three times its own army's size, let alone four air forces mounting in well over twice the size of in six days.

I can't say I'm very interested in this debate (though I wish good luck to those involved and commend you for your gracious first posts), but I will point out that this is a fundamentally unfair point, since you're not taking into account the diference in quality here: you're not comparing apples with apples.

Israel had the element of surprise in the Six-day war, as well as a much more modern and well-trained (regardless of whether they would have been conscripted or not) army than its Arab counter-parts. Its airforce was superior, its tanks were superior, its troops were superior. All that it lacked was the manpower, but as we all know force multipliers are more than able to make up for that.

There's absolutely no way you can compare this to the shared coalition effort to destroy Iraqi forces in 1991: the latter was not a surprise attack, it was not an immediate effort (considering many troops still had to arrive in 1990) and the Iraqi army was far superior to anything Israel faced in the Six-Day war.

[Lysimachus]

What? How exactly? Care to elaborate on that, honestly foolish, statement?

Seriously, people, if you're going to make statements that are controversial or just foolish, you should elaborate, add some sources or at least do anything to not make a complete fool of yourself.

It's pretty stupid to say that a soldier which voluntarily joined the armed forces won't die while a soldier from a conscription service would. Was I asleep when they made the "Invulnerability drug to all those who volunteer for the armed forces!" invention?

Seriously, Raglan, I like you so it makes me sorry to say this, but your statement was outrageously stupid and honestly made me cringe. Not only do you assume that a conscription soldier would 100% end up dead while a volunteer won't, you also assume that the same conscription soldier would be killed by the civilians whom he protects.
Not to mention you bring absolutely no proof behind your statement, no sources nor anything else that would support your ludicrous claim.

Explanation.

What the hell man.

Raglan: I think conscription is wrong.
You: ARGHHHHHHHHHH WHY DO YOU SAY SUCH PATHETIC COMMENTS, IT IS EXTREMELY INSULTING AND A DISGRACE TO MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!101010101!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fine, I "exaggerated" but you get my drift. Your citizenship application says you can keep a cool head, but this is just the opposite. He didn't even say anything drastic and you're e-screaming at him over nothing.

[Nazgûl Killer]

no i wasn't saying anything like that, its just my opinon. Being in the army, or navy or whatever carries with it certain risks, and while it is certainly sad if a volunteer dies, he had a choice and made an informed decision with knowledge about the risks. But someone forced to fight and die, well that i consider as unlawful taking of their life. They didn't choose the risk so didn't choose the possible consiquences of that risk. Its sad in both circumstances whether voluntary or not, but i consider the state forcing someone to do something where they die the same as murder. Just my opinion.

No problem with that, that's indeed your opinion and a healthy one at that, but the wording of the previous post was poor. Your opinion is quite well founded on logic and I would love to debate it one day. Just be more careful about wording. I apologize for I mistook your opinion as something else due to two, simple, words that have been overlooked. I have removed my post and apologize.

I can't say I'm very interested in this debate (though I wish good luck to those involved and commend you for your gracious first posts), but I will point out that this is a fundamentally unfair point, since you're not taking into account the diference in quality here: you're not comparing apples with apples.

Israel had the element of surprise in the Six-day war, as well as a much more modern and well-trained (regardless of whether they would have been conscripted or not) army than its Arab counter-parts. Its airforce was superior, its tanks were superior, its troops were superior. All that it lacked was the manpower, but as we all know force multipliers are more than able to make up for that.

Actually, the Centurion or the Sherman from the years 1942-1945, were not superior to the T-34-85 tanks the Egyptians had. Nor were they to any other tank.

As for the airforces, the Dassault Mirage IIIs was indeed quite superior to the MiG 21.

About the troops, I am inclined to agree due to the training methods then. But, as you already stated, the difference in numbers was massive.

Israel:

50,000 (and 214,000 reserve troops)
300 combat aircraft
800 tanks [2]

Arab Nations:

Egypt: 240,000
Syria, Jordan, and Iraq: 307,000
957 combat aircraft
2,504 tanks[3]

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

There's absolutely no way you can compare this to the shared coalition effort to destroy Iraqi forces in 1991: the latter was not a surprise attack, it was not an immediate effort (considering many troops still had to arrive in 1990) and the Iraqi army was far superior to anything Israel faced in the Six-Day war.

That may indeed be, but you need to remember that Israel has also evolved along with Iraq and its army was far better than that of the Six Day War, meaning that a comparison is quite fair.

However, I do indeed see your point, but despite this not being a fair comparison at most, it serves the purpose to show that no conscription army is inferior to a 'professional' army only due to it being a conscription army. What Israel achieved in the Six Day War is, up until now, considered one of the greatest military acts in history and is being taught at the finest military academies. I only used it to prove my point that conscription armies are not inferior to all-volunteer armies in general.

What the hell man.

Raglan: I think conscription is wrong.
You: ARGHHHHHHHHHH WHY DO YOU SAY SUCH PATHETIC COMMENTS, IT IS EXTREMELY INSULTING AND A DISGRACE TO MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!101010101!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fine, I "exaggerated" but you get my drift. Your citizenship application says you can keep a cool head, but this is just the opposite. He didn't even say anything drastic and you're e-screaming at him over nothing.

I thought he meant something else completely. If you would've posted this just a few minutes later, you would've seen it

I have apologized, I indeed overreacted, but it was because I skipped two, important and simple, words that made the entire thing look different. Once again, I apologize.

[Raglan]

No problem with that, that's indeed your opinion and a healthy one at that, but the wording of the previous post was poor. Your opinion is quite well founded on logic and I would love to debate it one day. Just be more careful about wording. I apologize for I mistook your opinion as something else due to two, simple, words that have been overlooked. I have removed my post and apologize.

no problem nazgul. Misunderstandings happen, as long as its resolved what does it matter. If i'd said what you thought i had your reaction would have been quite reasonable

That may indeed be, but you need to remember that Israel has also evolved along with Iraq and its army was far better than that of the Six Day War, meaning that a comparison is quite fair.

However, I do indeed see your point, but despite this not being a fair comparison at most, it serves the purpose to show that no conscription army is inferior to a 'professional' army only due to it being a conscription army. What Israel achieved in the Six Day War is, up until now, considered one of the greatest military acts in history and is being taught at the finest military academies. I only used it to prove my point that conscription armies are not inferior to all-volunteer armies in general.

Indeed, i think your point about conscription being worse than volunteer is a perfectly good one. Israel has a damned good military. And the six day war is probably the best piece of military planning in the last hundred years. Israel is rightly proud of it, and to be fair Israels agressive policies (something that Israel can get critised for in the british press) is pretty understandable with Israels circumstances. Though it is my impression that Israels neighbours are more content these days, Israels needs are for a conscripted military. But i expect that more people accept it because of the threats to Israel than they would in Britain where we don't have an immediate threat.

[Nazgûl Killer]

no problem nazgul. Misunderstandings happen, as long as its resolved what does it matter. If i'd said what you thought i had your reaction would have been quite reasonable

<3?

Indeed, i think your point about conscription being worsebetter than volunteer is a perfectly good one. Israel has a damned good military. And the six day war is probably the best piece of military planning in the last hundred years. Israel is rightly proud of it, and to be fair Israels agressive policies (something that Israel can get critised for in the british press) is pretty understandable with Israels circumstances. Though it is my impression that Israels neighbours are more content these days, Israels needs are for a conscripted military. But i expect that more people accept it because of the threats to Israel than they would in Britain where we don't have an immediate threat.

Fixed a little error there

Thank you for your support.

<3

[Raglan]

actually thats gotten me curious, is israels (ea? ae? not sure which way around it is) neighbours more accepting these days?

[Nazgûl Killer]

What do you mean? Do you mean literally neighbors like the family that lives next door, or as in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt?

[Raglan]

the second, for example do countries like Eygpt or Syria still deny that you exist? (you as in Israel) i know that pretty much all the neighbouring countries used to do so, but is that still the case? Is the risk of outright attack (ie invasion rather than terror type attacks) as high as it has been in the past?

[Katsumoto]

I'd have to disagree completely with the notion that a conscript and a volunteer will have the same effectiveness in battle. A volunteer has chosen to fight, he has by his own accord decided to be a soldier. That is the first step, deciding to lay your life on the line for your country. It doesn't just apply to the military or soldiers, it applies to anything. A person will be ten times more motivated to do something if he has chosen to do it, instead of being forced to do it. That is a simple fact. When it all goes to hell, the volunteer is much more likely to persevere and continue with his objective, whereas a conscript, regardless of training, will be much more likely to run since he has been forced into the situation.

And Israel is a strange example for conscription. I'm sure many Israelis would join the army regardless of conscription, since Israel has a very strong national identity and I imagine many Israelis would want to defend their country from the many enemies that surround them.

[Mightypeon]

I disagree, once a "volunteer" got an idea what war actually is like he is no longer happy to be there.