Conscription - For (Nazgûl Killer) vs. Against (the Black Prince)

[Nazgûl Killer]

Well, this is going to be hard, but no doubt entertaining.

So...

tBP will be debating in favor of volunteer service and against compulsory military service, whilst I shall be debating the opposite.

Prepare, ladies and gentlemen, for the battle of a lifetime. The Jedi vs. the Brit... Who shall triumph? Who shall prevail? WHO SHALL... Er... Ahm... Yeah...




EDIT:
Before you go, I'll provide us with a little fact here, this is a nice little map of the globe.

• Green: No armed services
• Blue: No conscription
• Orange: Plan for conscription to be abolished within 3 years
• Red: Conscription
• Grey: No information

EDIT2: I'll be taking the first shot, tBP decided to wuss out on taking the first shot
<3
(The first shot shall be in the next post, if you don't mind)

[Nazgûl Killer]

Since I have the dubious honor of taking the first shot, you people should prepare for a lengthy post.

It seems that the reigning philosophy nowadays in most nations of the globe is that the army and the civilians are two separate entities of the same state, causing for disdain and distaste from one side toward the other (Generally from the civilians toward the soldiers), thus reducing public opinion of the military and the soldiers as to something below them and something not worthy of them - When the opposite is quite the true, for the military is generally the force which protects the civilians... Sadly, some seem to forget this.

Patriotism and love for the country have now also become separate phrases in modern society because of this, as patriots are generally considered those who are affiliated with the armed forces of that nation, yet romanticism (Or love for the country) is affiliated with the civilian populace, yet, those two phrases are actually one - As love for the country is the description of patriotism.
In some, elitist, societies, those who proclaim themselves patriots are generally looked down upon and dismissed as "Army Grunts" and nothing more, a notion which appalls me and is generally devastating for the country, as once again, the military is entitled with the defense of said country.

Now, naturally, I'm not saying that every nation without conscription would have its civilian populace become elitist and would look down upon the armed forces, but there is also no doubt that people would rather look down at soldiers far more often if they never know what it is like not to be one - It's very easy to walk out of the shopping mall in a fancy car, living the life, while others fight for you so you will be able to live out your life. It's also very easy to criticize those people if you do not know what they went through or are going through and their way of thought. If you don't mind, I might even compare this to racism.

Here, in Israel, we have conscription and men are forced to serve in the armed forces for 3 years, as women are forced to serve in the armed forces for 2 years - And the negative impacts are minimal.
Being born into conscription, most folk here accept the situation at hand and don't mind it, whilst the minority do not. Some even threaten to kill themselves if they are not accepted into the military (The military may omit people from its services if their medical profile does not qualify them or for any other reason) - And the phrases love of the country and patriotism are not one or the other, they are together and they are acknowledged as the same.
The love for the country we have here is unbelievable, however, I cannot compare to other nations well enough. I can however say that the sizes of the parties at our Independence Day are... Well, let's just say that the police blocked off four neighborhoods at Tel Aviv due to the street parties. Clubs are packed, pubs are packed, bars are packed and the performances of Israeli artists have, literally, filled a place one and a half kilometer wide and a kilometer in length with people, meaning tens of thousands, and everyone is happy.
The people here in Israel are hot-headed generally, but there are no fights. It doesn't take a lot to spark a fight, but there are none. I actually walked bumped in to someone that day, quite strongly I must say (By accident), and having a 90 Kilogram 1.88 meter tall guy bumping into you really isn't fun, and what did he do? He started bursting into laughter. Such a thing would normally trigger an angry remark at best, but that day? Nothing. Simple laughter and joy.

Needless to say, the love for our country here flows through our veins quite intensely, and I attribute that to our compulsory military service above all else.
When I spoke with one of my friends from the U.S. the other day, and spoke with him about conscription - The entire idea appeared ludicrous to him - Saying that only fools join the military - And that exact attitude, I believe, is the bane of all nations.

Now, with a military point of view on the subject:

This approach proved successful in both world wars and offers several advantages over the all-volunteer military. First and most important, this approach demands popular participation in national security decisions and provides Congress with powerful incentives to reassert its war powers. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force of citizen soldiers would ensure that the burdens of war are felt equally in every community in America. Second, this approach provides the means to expand the Army to a sufficient size to meet its commitments. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on stop-loss policies or an endless cycle of year-on, year-off deployments of overstressed and exhausted forces. Third, conscription enables the military to be more discriminating in selecting those with the skills and attributes most required to fight today’s wars. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on exorbitant bonuses and reduced enlistment standards to fill its ranks. Finally, this approach would be less expensive. Unlike the world wars of the 20th century, today’s dangers will not pass quickly, allowing for a return to a smaller and less expensive military establishment.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/02/4384885

As demonstrated by this quote from the article, written by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling of the United States Army, the importance of conscription is not only demonstrated in the love for the country and the unity of the people, but also in the strength of the military, its efficiency and the deterrent (Which is necessary to avoid wars) - Ironically, being better suited for a war would actually serve to avoid wars.

Conscription also allows for a cheaper fighting force in the aspect that the military can assign those under conscription to specific, perfect-for-them roles, which will cause for less costly training and more efficient soldiers and personnel.

Lastly, I would like to add that nations that are in threat of existence (Israel for example, Georgia as well), in my view, must have conscription so their armed forces would be a sufficient deterrent - But in an event of a war, be strong enough to defend its nation.

[the Black Prince]

Its hardly fair to say I wussed out, its your argument, you're the challenger, its right and proper that you be accorded the honour of the first strike.

Having read my learned comrade's arguments, I do quite naturally disagree with pretty much all of it.

But before I go into why, I do think a clear distinction needs to be drawn. Given the scale of the conflicts, the numerous theatres etc, I doubt it would have been possible for any nation to actively fight in the two world wars without some form of conscripted service. The sheer size of those conflicts meant that quite literally every able person in the country needed to be actively working for the war effort in some way or other, the most obvious being service in the military. Conscription in a time of global war is a very different scenario to day to day service, whether the country's military is operating in peacetime, charged only with peacekeeping missions, or fighting in small to medium scale conflicts, as Britain is right now.

The simple fact is that armed forces were massively expanded to fight the world wars and significantly retracted following their conclusion. We can all but hope that such levels of conflict and conscription are never needed again.

There are any number of advantages to operating a military force of volunteers, the most obvious of which is that everyone serving in the Forces has chosen to be there. They've actively signed up for the military life, and if other nations systems are anything like the British Armed Forces, they've been given plenty of break points during the recruitment and training phases to say, no, this is not for me. Once these people have made it into the fleet, squadron or regiment, they're there because they want to be and chose to be.

Compare that to a force made up of people who don't want to be there, who are perhaps looking forward to the time when their enforced servitude comes to an end, who would rather be following their chosen career path and the benefits are obvious. Professional volunteer soldiers have a level of commitment and motivation to the Forces that can never be matched by conscripts. Such people are actively pursuing their goals from day 1 rather than marking time for 2-3 years until they can begin their career path.

An inevitable result of conscripted forces is that you have a much higher turnover of military personnel. These people are going through training, often highly expensive training, and then are leaving in a comparatively short period of time. Volunteer forces have a much higher retention rate and lower turnover. The professional soldiers have the time, as well as the commitment to the Force to not only preserve the skills of the training, but to hone it, perfect it and expand upon it throughout their time in the Forces.

When it comes to the quality of the fighting force, the motivation of the soldiers, sailors and airmen has to be one of the key factors. Quality is and ever has been the deciding factor in combat, more so than equipment, technological advantage and certainly numbers. As well as motivation, another factor in determining the quality of forces is training. A conscripted force has a large proportion of relatively low trained personnel. Such conscripts will have undertaken the basic elements of training but will entirely lack the more advanced levels of training and specialisms, not to mention experience, that comes from serving as a professional soldier.

There are also economic arguments to make against conscription, noting that you are depriving the economy of skilled workers from other sectors whilst they are serving their time.

I disagree entirely with the reigning philosophy Nazgul lays down. Never has it been more evident than now in my Country the love and pride individual communities have for their affiliated regiments, ships and squadrons. Only a couple of weeks ago, the sailors and marines of my City's affiliated ship, the HMS Assault exercised their Freedom of the City by marching through the city with colours flying. Many many people lined the streets when the regiment currently stationed at the city barracks, the Royal Welsh, were given a send off parade as they deployed to Afganistan and I know that many more will join me on the streets when they return home.

And all this from a society/culture known for its stoicism and emotional restraint.

Do some people have a low public opinion of the military? Yes. Inevitably so, no society is ever going to be entirely in agreement on such an issue. But if some lout should be foolish enough to insult a soldier in uniform on the streets, I have no doubt he'd be swiftly reminded of how wrong his actions were, not by the soldiers, but by other civilians. The respect accorded to the Forces has not been higher since the war. If a political candidate wanted to lose our current election with a single speech, all they would have to do is insult the Armed Forces, I guarantee it.

Our Forces are regularly hailed as heroes not simply because of what they do, but because thery chose to do it. I have little doubt that the appreciation for our Forces would actually diminish if we had conscription, because we would all know such people have not chosen to undertake this duty, perhaps do not even want to do it.

I think a nation that needs compulsory military service to bind its people together and instill in them a sense of love for their country is in dire straights as a nation anyway. That said, I doubt very much that Israeli's need such service to find and appreciate their identity. Even accepting the fact that Israel is a comparatively young nation and one who's modern people come from a wide variety of places and backgrounds after the War, I suspect they can find something they share other than all having been in the IDF.

Conscription also allows for a cheaper fighting force in the aspect that the military can assign those under conscription to specific, perfect-for-them roles, which will cause for less costly training and more efficient soldiers and personnel.

Having an all-volunteer force doesn't mean you can't assign people to where they are needed or to roles that suit them. A certain TWC member joined the British Army with (IIRC) the aim of becoming a tank commander. Indeed, what could be more fun than driving a Challenger II round Salisbury Plain? When he joined up, because of his pre-existing skills and abilities, he was assigned to the Royal Corps of Signals as a communications engineer.

When I expressed an interest in the Royal Navy, I went through several phases of their recruitment process before entering another area of public service. My goal in joining the Navy as an officer would be to command a Warship, so I was therefore interested in the Warfare branch, being the most obvious path to command. The Navy on the other hand was quite interested in having me pursue a career in the Logistics branch as my legal training would be useful as a legal officer.

I think anyone looking at the pay system of our military can safely say we don't offer exorbitant bonus' to fill the skilled trades either. As with any public sector job in Britain, you can inevitably earn more in private practice. People who serve don't do it for the money.

In fact, when my boyfriend was looking to join up, he explored careers in both the RAF and the Army. Given his background (worked in the oil industry on the pipelines and also is a trained chef) he was hoping to join either RAF ground maintainence teams or Royal Logistics Corps dealing with fuel/petrochemicals. At the time, the only vacancies the RAF had were for gunners in the RAF Regiment and the only vacancies in the Army were in the infantry.

I do agree, entirely, that being better suited for wars helps to ensure that you avoid a war. I just don't see how having a large conscript force achieves this. The strength of the British Armed Forces has always been in the quality and training of our officers and men and our ability, as the saying goes, to achieve the impossible on a shoestring (for non Brits, the ability to do something without advanced technology, no budget, relying entirely on the abilities and innovation of the people involved).

Britain as a nation cannot hope to compete with the US in terms of a wealth of advanced equipment, nor can we ever hope to achieve as many bodies on the ground. We are afterall, a small country. We consistently have punched beyond our weight because our soldiers sailors and airmen are highly motivated highly trained highly skilled and led by officers of equal calibre. Some of our training schools and teams are so highly regarded we train not just our own people, but those of other nations as well (including the US and Israel). A conscripted military reduces the professional of the Forces and so reduces their ability to fight and fight well. Yes, if you want a large number of grunts to march in formation then stand in a line and shoot a gun, then the conscript is for you. The real soldier is something more than this.

[Nazgûl Killer]

But before I go into why, I do think a clear distinction needs to be drawn. Given the scale of the conflicts, the numerous theatres etc, I doubt it would have been possible for any nation to actively fight in the two world wars without some form of conscripted service. The sheer size of those conflicts meant that quite literally every able person in the country needed to be actively working for the war effort in some way or other, the most obvious being service in the military. Conscription in a time of global war is a very different scenario to day to day service, whether the country's military is operating in peacetime, charged only with peacekeeping missions, or fighting in small to medium scale conflicts, as Britain is right now.

The simple fact is that armed forces were massively expanded to fight the world wars and significantly retracted following their conclusion. We can all but hope that such levels of conflict and conscription are never needed again.

I actually tried to avoid the topic of the two world wars, but I decided not to alter the quote given by the Lt. Col. I apologize if I hadn't made that clear.

There are any number of advantages to operating a military force of volunteers, the most obvious of which is that everyone serving in the Forces has chosen to be there. They've actively signed up for the military life, and if other nations systems are anything like the British Armed Forces, they've been given plenty of break points during the recruitment and training phases to say, no, this is not for me. Once these people have made it into the fleet, squadron or regiment, they're there because they want to be and chose to be.

Regardless of choice, one needs to repay his debt to society and nation - Conscription is a great way to do that, and it doesn't have to last too long - For example, Greece has a conscription of 9 months - Not too long of a period.

Compare that to a force made up of people who don't want to be there, who are perhaps looking forward to the time when their enforced servitude comes to an end, who would rather be following their chosen career path and the benefits are obvious. Professional volunteer soldiers have a level of commitment and motivation to the Forces that can never be matched by conscripts. Such people are actively pursuing their goals from day 1 rather than marking time for 2-3 years until they can begin their career path.

I am inclined to disagree with that.

Despite being volunteers, they are no different from soldiers in conscription due to one thing: Combat training.
Combat training in the military aims to turn combat training into a second nature for the troopers, whether you want to be there or not - You will fight due to your training. The question of motivation only applies if you can actually say "No" - When in conscription, such a thing simply does not exist (I'm not sure about a volunteer force), meaning thatthe only true time motivation actually matters, is when you can say "I simply can't do that" - Meaning in training (In combat you really can't step up to your foe and say: "Hey, please don't shoot, I just can't do this"), but afterward it means little to none, as combat training is already your second nature and always tested. The myth that conscription soldiers obey less or obey in a much more unpleasant demeanor should be broken as it is completely untrue. Soldiers are taught and (Pardon me, but it is true) brainwashed for the duration of basic and combat training to obey their superiors no matter what and how to fight - And that will never change, volunteer or conscription, the level of motivation is exactly the same on the field of battle and in regular service - When it really matters.

An inevitable result of conscripted forces is that you have a much higher turnover of military personnel. These people are going through training, often highly expensive training, and then are leaving in a comparatively short period of time. Volunteer forces have a much higher retention rate and lower turnover. The professional soldiers have the time, as well as the commitment to the Force to not only preserve the skills of the training, but to hone it, perfect it and expand upon it throughout their time in the Forces.

United States Marine Corps Recruit Depots are located at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, and Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, California. All female enlisted Marines go to Parris Island. Men go to either, depending on whether they were recruited east or west of the Mississippi River. The Marine Corps' 13-week-long recruit training is the longest in United States Armed Services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruit_training

When it comes to Israel, the times varies from 3 weeks (Non-combat), to 3 years (Submarines).

Your claim is quite baseless I must say, and also lacking in factual sources. It may be true that in theory your statement is true, but in practice this does not occur.

For most armies, the length of training is identical - And no one actually cares about the number of troops coming in because you can easily organize draft dates so they don't collide, the only thing they care about is preparing the troops, as quickly and efficiently as possible, for combat. Nothing more. The aspect of the number of troops never comes into effect, be it an all volunteer military, or a conscription military.

Every branch and job has different lengths of training accommodating to its duty and part in the military, regardless of the number of applicants or draftees.

When it comes to the quality of the fighting force, the motivation of the soldiers, sailors and airmen has to be one of the key factors. Quality is and ever has been the deciding factor in combat, more so than equipment, technological advantage and certainly numbers. As well as motivation, another factor in determining the quality of forces is training.

As I've already said, motivation doesn't matter on the field of battle, at least in this aspect - The reason being that someone firing at you is quite enough motivation to fight it, regardless if you joined willingly or have been drafted.
If you speak of quality, can you argue against the IDF's quality? As the IDF is one of the most acclaimed and respected armies in the world, considered by most governments to be one of the best (Hence, why everyone buys the weapons it makes, why everyone buys the weapons it uses) And to remind you, Israel has conscription.

Motivation isn't a question, when you enter a battlefield, your combat training kicks in, not your motivation of "Man, I so don't want to be in this army" - It's "Either I kill him, or he kills me" and then the combat training takes over, nothing else. Anyone who thinks that soldiers think of anything else aside for their rifle, their foe's rifle and the men of their platoon has quite a naive way of thought.

Now, out of actual accounts with battle-hardened soldiers (One of them, my brother, the other, my father, and several others which I'd rather not name) I know one thing about combat: You go blank. 100% blank. You think of nothing but how to kill your enemy and how to get out of this alive, as such, you think of strategies, but nothing else.
You don't think of politics.
You don't think of why you joined.
You don't think of that you didn't want to join.
You think of the men under your command, the battle, and the battlefield.

A conscripted force has a large proportion of relatively low trained personnel. Such conscripts will have undertaken the basic elements of training but will entirely lack the more advanced levels of training and specialisms, not to mention experience, that comes from serving as a professional soldier.

I have already stated how this statement is false. A "Professional" soldier is nothing more than a terminology indicating a volunteer fighter, nothing more than that, it doesn't indicate any way of professionalism or anything else.

Now, as I've said before, no soldier is poorly trained. Every soldier is trained specifically for the job he is supposed to do.
And, also, to remind you - If you fail bootcamp (Yes, you can fail bootcamp), you do it again. So time is not of the essence at all.

There are also economic arguments to make against conscription, noting that you are depriving the economy of skilled workers from other sectors whilst they are serving their time.

That may be quite true, but one needs to remember that these citizens need to serve their country as well, not only have their country serve them - And a great way to do this is by conscription.

I disagree entirely with the reigning philosophy Nazgul lays down. Never has it been more evident than now in my Country the love and pride individual communities have for their affiliated regiments, ships and squadrons. Only a couple of weeks ago, the sailors and marines of my City's affiliated ship, the HMS Assault exercised their Freedom of the City by marching through the city with colours flying. Many many people lined the streets when the regiment currently stationed at the city barracks, the Royal Welsh, were given a send off parade as they deployed to Afganistan and I know that many more will join me on the streets when they return home.

But you cannot deny the fact that many have also disdain for the armed forces, do they not? Talking poorly of them, thinking of them as nothing but lesser grunts... I haven't seen many here. To be honest, I can only remember on one, two, maybe three that dare say such things - And they haven't even been enlisted yet.

And all this from a society/culture known for its stoicism and emotional restraint.

Do some people have a low public opinion of the military? Yes. Inevitably so, no society is ever going to be entirely in agreement on such an issue. But if some lout should be foolish enough to insult a soldier in uniform on the streets, I have no doubt he'd be swiftly reminded of how wrong his actions were, not by the soldiers, but by other civilians. The respect accorded to the Forces has not been higher since the war. If a political candidate wanted to lose our current election with a single speech, all they would have to do is insult the Armed Forces, I guarantee it.

I'll have to take your word for it, as you would with my experiences from Israel.

But I have to say that such a status doesn't exist in all states, taking the USA for example. Several times have I seen in TV shows that soldiers are being looked down upon - And yes, I know, TV shows aren't really true gazes into the real life in the nation, but in every bit of script there is some truth from the streets.

Our Forces are regularly hailed as heroes not simply because of what they do, but because thery chose to do it. I have little doubt that the appreciation for our Forces would actually diminish if we had conscription, because we would all know such people have not chosen to undertake this duty, perhaps do not even want to do it.

I think that way of thinking is actually backwards, wouldn't you have more empathy toward those soldiers having known what they go through? Or went through? Wouldn't you think higher of them, knowing all the difficulties they went through?

I think a nation that needs compulsory military service to bind its people together and instill in them a sense of love for their country is in dire straights as a nation anyway. That said, I doubt very much that Israelis need such service to find and appreciate their identity. Even accepting the fact that Israel is a comparatively young nation and one who's modern people come from a wide variety of places and backgrounds after the War, I suspect they can find something they share other than all having been in the IDF.

Well, I'll address this in points if you don't mind.
1) I never said that it needs it, I said that it can't hurt - And that conscription would actually bring the nation's people closer than any other nation's.

2) You underestimate the different backgrounds people come from. The IDF has locked the people who emigrated here as a part of the society, integrating them almost instantly and perfectly into it. We have people from Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Russian, USA and countless other nations here, together. If it were not for the IDF, I don't know if we would feel so united so quickly.

3) Yes, we can easily find other things that we share and we do - But what the IDF has done, I believe, has created patience, unity, comradery and tolerance which is nation wide. You serve alongside Druze, Russians, Poles, Iraqis, Iranians, people from Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Britain... And it teaches you how to communicate with those people, it teaches you tolerance toward other peoples, it teaches you comradery despite differences and teaches that ever so quickly.

Having an all-volunteer force doesn't mean you can't assign people to where they are needed or to roles that suit them. A certain TWC member joined the British Army with (IIRC) the aim of becoming a tank commander. Indeed, what could be more fun than driving a Challenger II round Salisbury Plain? When he joined up, because of his pre-existing skills and abilities, he was assigned to the Royal Corps of Signals as a communications engineer.

When I expressed an interest in the Royal Navy, I went through several phases of their recruitment process before entering another area of public service. My goal in joining the Navy as an officer would be to command a Warship, so I was therefore interested in the Warfare branch, being the most obvious path to command. The Navy on the other hand was quite interested in having me pursue a career in the Logistics branch as my legal training would be useful as a legal officer.

The thing is that a force based upon conscription has a better variety to pick from, because it's not only those who volunteer, it's everyone - And it allows it to pick who it needs and where without regard - Of course, most soldiers (And this has been proven) have been placed where they wanted to be placed, in one of their three top priorities, and this is another advantage the conscription force has - No lack of men.

If you're not stressing over how many people you can assign to where, and if you actually have extra people to assign wherever they want, it means that most people will get what they want.

I'll explain better:

Let's say soldiers 1 - 20 have selected "Tank Commander" as their top priority.
Soldiers 21 - 40 have selected "Ship Commander" as their top priority.
And soldiers 41 - 60 have selected "Military Engineer" as their top priority.

And in all those roles, you need to fill in only 20. This means that all of those soldiers will get what they want, and you can continue to do this with others and their second and third priority, making sure that almost everyone is happy.

Now, with the excess of men like this, you also make sure that you pick the absolute best for the jobs you need them, meaning the best equipped, best tooled and best skilled for the job, not just those who volunteer.

This is what an all volunteer force lacks, the two examples you showed didn't get what they wanted - And that's because of lack of man power to assign you to the places you want. They have had to assign you elsewhere to fit their needs, but in conscription, when many pick different priorities, the military can quite easily please everyone.

Don't you think that a volunteer soldier that did not get what he wanted would be quite a bit more discouraged than a conscripted soldier that did? Despite what I already said earlier, that morale rarely matters outside training - You seem to like the subject, so I ask you, don't you think that a volunteer soldier that did not get what he wanted would be more discouraged than a conscripted one that did?

I think anyone looking at the pay system of our military can safely say we don't offer exorbitant bonus' to fill the skilled trades either. As with any public sector job in Britain, you can inevitably earn more in private practice. People who serve don't do it for the money.

Of course they don't, and of course they can earn more money in the private sector - But in conscription countries, it is a fact of life that people leave the military at a certain age to gain higher education, so it rarely gets in the way, now, I would like to further add that you can postpone your service if needed, to gain a higher education and serve at a better role in the armed forces. You can easily asked to go for a higher education and serve as a 'quality' role after your degree, as long as your stats are sufficient - And the army pays for it. Or at least most of it.

In fact, when my boyfriend was looking to join up, he explored careers in both the RAF and the Army. Given his background (worked in the oil industry on the pipelines and also is a trained chef) he was hoping to join either RAF ground maintainence teams or Royal Logistics Corps dealing with fuel/petrochemicals. At the time, the only vacancies the RAF had were for gunners in the RAF Regiment and the only vacancies in the Army were in the infantry.

I'd have to refer you to my too-long-of-a-speech before.

I do agree, entirely, that being better suited for wars helps to ensure that you avoid a war. I just don't see how having a large conscript force achieves this. The strength of the British Armed Forces has always been in the quality and training of our officers and men and our ability, as the saying goes, to achieve the impossible on a shoestring (for non Brits, the ability to do something without advanced technology, no budget, relying entirely on the abilities and innovation of the people involved).

Like I said before, better assigning due to excess of personnel allows for higher quality, more manpower allows for a better technological industry and so on.

Britain as a nation cannot hope to compete with the US in terms of a wealth of advanced equipment, nor can we ever hope to achieve as many bodies on the ground. We are afterall, a small country. We consistently have punched beyond our weight because our soldiers sailors and airmen are highly motivated highly trained highly skilled and led by officers of equal calibre. Some of our training schools and teams are so highly regarded we train not just our own people, but those of other nations as well (including the US and Israel). A conscripted military reduces the professional of the Forces and so reduces their ability to fight and fight well. Yes, if you want a large number of grunts to march in formation then stand in a line and shoot a gun, then the conscript is for you. The real soldier is something more than this.

I've already claimed against this. That myth and misconception is simply untrue. A force consisting of so-called professionals doesn't necessarily mean they are better than the conscripted forces. I do wonder if Britain would have been able, with just 500,000 combat-able-soldiers, to take down every enemy air force and 4 enemy armies in just six days, forcing all those nations to complete submission. (1967)

Quality is not the issue here whatsoever, as the claim that conscripted forces are lesser in quality is quite false, as proven again and again.

To remind you, Israel trains Georgian, US, UK, French and sometimes Germans troops as well. This isn't something new, every nation shares training methods or trains soldiers with an allied nation, the reason being? Profitability.

Israel actually helps trains Marines, Marines come to Israel to train alongside IDF soldiers and learn Krav Maga (And generally get their asses handed to them. Pardon my French. ).

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.

Please, I really don't want to see that approach here, the reason being that it is 100% baseless and not true, and it is being fueled by misconceptions and misinformation spread by people with little to no knowledge of military and armed forces and the know-it-all attitude. (No, I'm not talking about you. We're having a healthy debate, others make dumb statements)

[the Black Prince]

Regardless of choice, one needs to repay his debt to society and nation - Conscription is a great way to do that, and it doesn't have to last too long - For example, Greece has a conscription of 9 months - Not too long of a period.

Perhaps, but there are so many other ways. Why force someone into military servitude when they could be better utilising their skills and talents in some other way. There are many forms of public and civic service around, both career wise, such as a civil servant or voluntary, like a youth worker.

Combat training in the military aims to turn combat training into a second nature for the troopers, whether you want to be there or not - You will fight due to your training. The question of motivation only applies if you can actually say "No" - When in conscription, such a thing simply does not exist (I'm not sure about a volunteer force), meaning thatthe only true time motivation actually matters, is when you can say "I simply can't do that" - Meaning in training (In combat you really can't step up to your foe and say: "Hey, please don't shoot, I just can't do this"), but afterward it means little to none, as combat training is already your second nature and always tested. The myth that conscription soldiers obey less or obey in a much more unpleasant demeanor should be broken as it is completely untrue. Soldiers are taught and (Pardon me, but it is true) brainwashed for the duration of basic and combat training to obey their superiors no matter what and how to fight - And that will never change, volunteer or conscription, the level of motivation is exactly the same on the field of battle and in regular service - When it really matters.

Moving on, when it comes to combat training, the volunteer soldier and the conscript both share some common basics. They have after all both done their basic training for whatever service they join.

But no military force with a short term conscript (say 2 years) is going to waste time and resources in advanced or specialist combat training for such soldiers as there is no return on the investment. The best troops are those that have trained in warfare for years. Not just the basic levels of training, but all that comes after through years of military service. No conscript can ever hope to compete with this.

As for motivation, my only option is not to fight. I could always run away. If I didn't want to be there in the first place and I'm now being put in harms way against my will, will I really fight to the best of my ability? Sure, maybe I'll fight, but not with the dedication and determination of a volunteer. I may even be simply looking for the first opportunity to escape the situation. It will of course vary from person to person. You can train someone how to fight, but that doesn't mean they'll want to fight.

Sticking with training:

When it comes to Israel, the times varies from 3 weeks (Non-combat), to 3 years (Submarines).

Your claim is quite baseless I must say, and also lacking in factual sources. It may be true that in theory your statement is true, but in practice this does not occur.

For most armies, the length of training is identical - And no one actually cares about the number of troops coming in because you can easily organize draft dates so they don't collide, the only thing they care about is preparing the troops, as quickly and efficiently as possible, for combat. Nothing more. The aspect of the number of troops never comes into effect, be it an all volunteer military, or a conscription military.

Yes, recruit training is the same. So what. That's basic training. I've already said all recruits get the same basic training.

What do you think happens after basic training is done. Do forces sit in their barracks for 15 years waiting for action?

I'd point out that basic infantry training in the British Army is 26 weeks, twice the length of training for US Marines. For the Foot Guards and Paras, its 28 weeks, for the Ghurka's 39 weeks. For the Royal Marines, the basic Commando course is 32 weeks (34 weeks for those training for Marine Air troops, whiose course includes 2 weeks parachute training with the Paras).

Of those 26 weeks, 14 are "Phase 1" training, which is common across the army, and 12 weeks are "Phase 2" which is infantry specific.

Not for nothing do we say the basic British infantryman is at least equal to a US marine in terms of training and ability, if not better.

I'm still trying to work out how my claim is baseless. If we assume national service is 2 years long, you have a very high constant turnover of troops because the majority of 18yr olds are signging up every year, and a roughly similar number of 20yr olds leaving, every year and a very low retention rate. If you're using a volunteer force the numbers are much smaller, because we're not recruiting our entire 18yr old population, every year.

If we operated a national service system, the more than a 1/4 of time spent in national service would be spent in training.

I have already stated how this statement is false. A "Professional" soldier is nothing more than a terminology indicating a volunteer fighter, nothing more than that, it doesn't indicate any way of professionalism or anything else.

Now, as I've said before, no soldier is poorly trained. Every soldier is trained specifically for the job he is supposed to do.

My point is that all our soldiers receive basic combat infantry training or combat armour training. That qualifies them to serve as a riflemen or cavalry trooper. There's many many specialisms that can take them far beyond the basic infantry or armour role.

We don't count a soldier qualified for combat until they've undertaken the basic army 14 week phase 1 training and the specialism phase 2 training, which for the infantry is 12 weeks, but lasts different times for the Air Corps, Artillary and Cavalry. Phase 1 teaches you how to be a sodlier, phase 2 teaches you how to be an infantryman, tank crew, gunner etc.

But then there's phase 3. Maybe they want to become part of an infantry troops mortar crew, or become a tank commander, or a demolitions expert, or join the SAS, leadership or simply advanced infantry training.

I'm not saying that a conscript is poorly trained (though if your training course is only 3 weeks, I'll reserve judgement on that!) but that a professional soldier, who's received training over the course of years, not to mention experience, is simply going to be a better soldier.

That may be quite true, but one needs to remember that these citizens need to serve their country as well, not only have their country serve them - And a great way to do this is by conscription.

A citizen can serve their country just as well in both wartime and peace by working in an ammunitions factory, or building aircraft, or serving whisky for the prime minister, or working as a chief executive for a large corporation that generates massive tax revenues that pays for such trivial matters as having an armed force.

But you cannot deny the fact that many have also disdain for the armed forces, do they not? Talking poorly of them, thinking of them as nothing but lesser grunts... I haven't seen many here. To be honest, I can only remember on one, two, maybe three that dare say such things - And they haven't even been enlisted yet.

If I were forced to serve against my will, I think I'd have considerable distain for the army too... especially as I'd prefer to serve in the Royal Navy, which as the Senior Service has spent 350 years looking down on the Army..!

I'm sure there are people who have disdain for the Armed Forces... everyone is entitled to their opinion. But in this country at least, I have a hard time seeing what you describe. As I've said, our forces our hailed as heroes.

But I have to say that such a status doesn't exist in all states, taking the USA for example. Several times have I seen in TV shows that soldiers are being looked down upon - And yes, I know, TV shows aren't really true gazes into the real life in the nation, but in every bit of script there is some truth from the streets.

In Britain, we certainly look down upon the US Armed Forces... but then, we lost more people to friendly fire incidents in the early days of Iraq than we did to Iraqis. When US pilots can't tell the difference between a large russian built lorry and a small armoured car displaying coalition recognition panels, then yes, its hard to have respect for them!

I obviously can no more comment on the state of affiars in the US than you can. A brief websearch reveals that there iis plenty of US public support for their troops, whether that is matched by an equally strong attitude of people looking down on their soldiers, I don't know. Don't believe everything yuo see on TV though.

I think that way of thinking is actually backwards, wouldn't you have more empathy toward those soldiers having known what they go through? Or went through? Wouldn't you think higher of them, knowing all the difficulties they went through?

Do I need to have my leg blown off to appreciate what a life changing injury that is? I think its entirely possible to understand and respect skill and ability as well as personal bravery without having been there. You don't need to do something to recognise how hard it is, or to appreciate it.

I never said that it needs it, I said that it can't hurt - And that conscription would actually bring the nation's people closer than any other nation's.

Fair enough, in that sense conscription cannot hurt it. But equally, the same goal can be achieved by a national citizen service. community based service rather than military based service, as just one example. Any shared experience can bring a community or a nation together. Military service is just one option.

2) You underestimate the different backgrounds people come from. The IDF has locked the people who emigrated here as a part of the society, integrating them almost instantly and perfectly into it. We have people from Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Russian, USA and countless other nations here, together. If it were not for the IDF, I don't know if we would feel so united so quickly.

Perhaps so, obviously, Israel is in a fairly unique situation in that regard. The same cannot be said to be true for Britain.

The thing is that a force based upon conscription has a better variety to pick from, because it's not only those who volunteer, it's everyone - And it allows it to pick who it needs and where without regard - Of course, most soldiers (And this has been proven) have been placed where they wanted to be placed, in one of their three top priorities, and this is another advantage the conscription force has - No lack of men.

If you're not stressing over how many people you can assign to where, and if you actually have extra people to assign wherever they want, it means that most people will get what they want.

I'll explain better:

Let's say soldiers 1 - 20 have selected "Tank Commander" as their top priority.
Soldiers 21 - 40 have selected "Ship Commander" as their top priority.
And soldiers 41 - 60 have selected "Military Engineer" as their top priority.

And in all those roles, you need to fill in only 20. This means that all of those soldiers will get what they want, and you can continue to do this with others and their second and third priority, making sure that almost everyone is happy.

Now, with the excess of men like this, you also make sure that you pick the absolute best for the jobs you need them, meaning the best equipped, best tooled and best skilled for the job, not just those who volunteer.

This is what an all volunteer force lacks, the two examples you showed didn't get what they wanted - And that's because of lack of man power to assign you to the places you want. They have had to assign you elsewhere to fit their needs, but in conscription, when many pick different priorities, the military can quite easily please everyone.

Don't you think that a volunteer soldier that did not get what he wanted would be quite a bit more discouraged than a conscripted soldier that did? Despite what I already said earlier, that morale rarely matters outside training - You seem to like the subject, so I ask you, don't you think that a volunteer soldier that did not get what he wanted would be more discouraged than a conscripted one that did?

I will not disagree that a conscription system gives yuo access to a better range of talents than a volunteer system ever will. Though I would point out that some of those talents could better serve their respective nation outside the military altogether. If your talent is being a lawyer or an investment banker or a geologist, I'm sure you could better serve your country by working in the Crown Prosecution Service, the Financial Services Authority or the Environment Agency. If we're going to go down the line of the military giving people roles based on talents, why stop with the military? Why not simply require that everyone serve their country for 2 years and put skills to where they'd best be utilised.

The only roles that are generally lacking in the military are the most basic ones, the infantry riflemen. When people sign up, they are screened for abilities that can be used and if there are vacancies, filtered into those specialisms anyway. As I've said, last time my boyfriend looked to sign up for the air force, the only non-officer vacancy the RAF had was a gunner in the RAF regiment.

As for disappointment, I don't think it really is any different. Afterall, as a conscript, I'd be dissapointed about having to serve in the first place! If I had to name a specialism, I'd choose legal officer, since I've wanted to be a lawyer since I'm 15. However, at 18, I wouldn't be qualified to be a legal officer anyway, so I'm automatically going to be doubly disappointed, first about serving in general and then about being given a job I don't really want to do. I'd make a terrible rifleman. My aim with a weapon is deadly at a range of 43 inches, and completely inaccurate at range. The Army doesn't have much call for swordsmen these days though.

Of course they don't, and of course they can earn more money in the private sector - But in conscription countries, it is a fact of life that people leave the military at a certain age to gain higher education, so it rarely gets in the way, now, I would like to further add that you can postpone your service if needed, to gain a higher education and serve at a better role in the armed forces. You can easily asked to go for a higher education and serve as a 'quality' role after your degree, as long as your stats are sufficient - And the army pays for it. Or at least most of it.

Rarely gets in the way? Its two years away from your chosen career path. Whether you do it before or after Uni, its still two years out. Sticking with my lawyer example, its a minimum 6 years worth of training to be a qualified solicitor, including the academic stages at university. The youngest age you could qualify is therefore 24, on the assumption that people going to Uni before 18 is very rare. If you add a 2 year national service to it, that pushes the minimum qualification age to 26. If your goal is to become a Judge and get as far as the Supreme Court, national service would seriously get in your way, since to qualify, you have to have a certain number of years senior judicial experience and there's a statutory retirement age for judges.

Just one example...

Like I said before, better assigning due to excess of personnel allows for higher quality, more manpower allows for a better technological industry and so on.

No it doesn't.

OK, so you can assign people with IT skills to IT warfare roles. We do that already. But our IT warfare people get better at their jobs over the course of years, do advanced training etc. National service does not allow scope for continual training and improvement, nor does it allow for learning from experience. Any professional force, not just military, but any employment, will have a pool of highly skilled workers who have done their job for years and can pass on their skills and knowledge from experience over the course of day to day employment. The high turnover inherrant in a conscription based system limits the availability and development of such a knowledge pool. Obviously, all forces, conscription or otherwise have a pool of people who choose to stay on, but in the UK for example, the normal length of service is 22 years. Thats a long time to develop your skills as a soldier. In a conscription force, the majority of your soldiers, at any given time, will have less than 2 years service, less than 2 years worth of training, less than 2 years worth of training. For a professional force with a service length of 22 years and minimum service of 4 years, the average has to be much higher.

Quality is not the issue here whatsoever, as the claim that conscripted forces are lesser in quality is quite false, as proven again and again.

A soldier with 2 years service and 3 weeks training is never going to be of the same quality as a soldier doing a similar role but with 26 weeks training and 4 years service. The more time you invest in your men, the better the soldier you create out of it.

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'm sure the fact that Israel would have been wiped off the map if they had failed had nothing to do with motivating the entire nation to fight in those circumstances. As Caeser pointed out at Phasallus, a soldier who has no option but to fight or die has a great incentive to fight and fight well.

The notion of comparing the 6 day war to the gulf war as indicative that a conscripted force is of a higher quality is absurd.

The conflicts were of an entirely different nature, the objectives of the campaign were entirely different, the allies in the gulf war steadily rolled over a weak defending force, there were no large scale pitched battles, and ultimately, israeli soldiers had the strongest possible motivation for fighting in '67.

According to post war analysis, manythe Iraqi units we drove out of kuwait were said to be poorly trained conscripts. (various sources, but I'll cite Persion Gulf War by J Garry Clifford)

I'd also point out that the time frame you refer to goes from the invasion of Kuwait to the liberation of kuwait. When coalition forces entered Kuwait, it took, wait for it, 4 days to liberate, from 24th to 28th February 1991. The ground campaign in Iraq took place during the same 4 days.


I have to say though, that we are perhaps two of the wrong people to debate conscription as a general issue. Your approach to conscription is, obviously, an Israeli take on it. Israel has a very good incentive for maintaining a large standing army. Very few other nations are in the same position that Israel is.

When I make my arguments about conscription, I'm talking generalities... conscription as it applies to a cross section of nations from Sweden through to well, Iraq under Saddam. Not every conscription system has a reserve system to allow conscripts to maintain their military training (though most western systems do) equally volunteer reserve force's like the British Territorial Army have regular training and call up periods just like IDF reserves to bolster active duty man-power as needed.

Equally, while Britain is not able to compete in terms of manpower, budget and widespread use of hightech combat systems, we remain one of, if not the best trained armed force in the world, which is what allows our smaller, under-resourced military to punch well above our weight. If we didn't train our troops to such a high calibre, we could never accomplish all we need. While we have the technology, we don't have the budget to splash out on state of the art weapon systems across the military spectrum like the US does, nor do we have the manpower to achieve a goal no matter the cost or simply flood a theatre with men as countries like China can.

Our respective defence establishments are about as different as two "western" nations could possibly be, a fact thats enhanced by the fundamentally different mission profiles of the IDF and the MoD.

Balls in your court!

[Nazgûl Killer]

Damn you tBP, stop taking stuff personally and admit you wussed out!
<3
To be perfectly honest, I feared a too much lengthy post that would scare you from reading, so that's why I didn't want to take the first shot.

I'll reply as soon as I get back home. At a friend's house right now.

[the Black Prince]

I admit nothing!

I prefer lengthy posts, give me plenty of ammunition to fight you with! haha!

[Nazgûl Killer]

Goodness me I've been gone for a while.
Sorry.
I've only had brief stays at TWC and really didn't have the time to respond to this, but I reckon I'll respond tomorrow.

EDIT: Grah. I'll respond as soon as possible. I'm simply not around long enough to respond to this.