Conscription (Or the Draft)

[Vanoi]

Been browsing some threads lately and the topic of drafting soldiers or enabling conscription has been coming up. I was wondering what the people's thoughts on drafting soldiers or conscripting soldiers was.

In my opinion, i really don't like conscription or drafting soldiers. I don't believe society should be forcing people to join the army. Armies in my opinion should be an AVF.

However, there are some exceptions to what i believe. I think in wars like World War II or the US Civil War drafting soldiers was completely necessary. I would also accept the drafting of soldiers in defense of the nation (like if the country was invaded.) I would never accept the drafting of soldiers in offensive wars (Iraq for example)

[Admiral Piett]

Conscription is a really bad idea because it gives you masses of untrained, unprofessional soldiers. The only time its necessary is when fighting very severe defensive wars.

Compulsory military service is dumb as well. Take Greece for example, it wastes a lot of resources on this for no apparent reason whatsoever.

[TheRomanRuler]

Conscription is a really bad idea because it gives you masses of untrained, unprofessional soldiers. The only time its necessary is when fighting very severe defensive wars.

Compulsory military service is dumb as well. Take Greece for example, it wastes a lot of resources on this for no apparent reason whatsoever.

In Finland, every man gets 6 months (At least, many times more) lasting training. That way we get 200 000 properly armed and trained soldiers in times of war, 400 000 properly trained but no so well armed soldiers more, and possibly even more. Then if situation gets even worst its possible to call 50 000-500 000 obsolutely trained soldiers with bad eguipment, but for querilla warfare, tactic all Finnish armies use, they are good enough.
And perhaps even more, tough untrained and terribly armed. These guys would get equipment from World wars.

But spine of army is those 200 000 soldiers, they can defend our country well enough. Practically we can have those additional troops, but only some of them are trained and armed (bigger problem, becouse after couple fights drafted troops are no different from professional troops.

I forgot to mention 20 000 professional soldiers, who serve all the time.

And if someone dos not want to go in army, then qo to civil service! That way all who go to army (20k every yer) are accept it and so have better morale.

Finish army:
20k professional soldiers
Peacekeepers and UN troops, around 2k i think.
200k Conscripted, well trained and armed soldiers
100-500k obsolutely trained and badly armed (assault rifle and some fatigueses)
1-500k cuickly trained and very badly armed, propably not available)
Everyone fight using querilla tactics.
200 Hornet fighters, modernly armed.
Some artillery ( i don`t know how much)
Some naval forces. (don`t know how much)
Some special forces (don`t know how much)
Tanks and armored vehicles (don`t know how much) all old, but not obsolete.

After couple fights they are not any worse what professional soldiers are, +has terrain advantage. As Vietnam proved, its vital to know country you fight in. Yet you may not succeed.

And population: 5 million. So Finland has 1/6 of its population in arms... Impressive? Possibly even more, in querilla warfare you don`t need almost any training.

[Adar]

Everyone fight using querilla tactics.

That part is actually not correct because the Finnish military doctrine still relies on a cohesive front line.

There are some similarities with guerilla warfare (an emphasis on concealment and ambushes) but the central core of the doctrine is very different. With guerilla tactics you do not fight with a cohesive frontline, while the Finnish army would retreat, delay and contain any attacks made by an enemy with superior numbers. But always strive to prevent the enemy from breaking through the army and reach unprotected areas of Finland.

Lost ground would then be retaken (or compensated for) by flank attacks and offensive launched after the enemy have become disorganized by their own advance or Finnish counter attacks (often made in the shape of ambushes).

[Hakkapeliitta]

That part is actually not correct because the Finnish military doctrine still relies on a cohesive front line.

There are some similarities with guerilla warfare (an emphasis on concealment and ambushes) but the central core of the doctrine is very different. With guerilla tactics you do not fight with a cohesive frontline, while the Finnish army would retreat, delay and contain any attacks made by an enemy with superior numbers. But always strive to prevent the enemy from breaking through the army and reach unprotected areas of Finland.

Lost ground would then be retaken (or compensated for) by flank attacks and offensive launched after the enemy have become disorganized by their own advance or Finnish counter attacks (often made in the shape of ambushes).

Yeah, that was a funny thing 'cos I forgot to give the "how to wage guerilla warfare"(or in that spirit anyway) -manual to our company which we were supposed to give when we went home. I like to think that it was more of a peace of mind for every one.

I mean I was one of the clercs, and the boxes just stayed in the office.

That part is actually not correct because the Finnish military doctrine still relies on a cohesive front line.

We do? We have plenty of "guerilla" companies that organized into batallions if push comes to shove. They are called "sissi" and they are basically light infantry who have no other means of transport except their legs. The are supposed to go behind enemy lines and harass them if they can. A more elite branch of that are "sissi-radisti" as in a radio-operator who are NCO's and trained in morse-code. One of my friends is one and I can say I'm not impressed.

Oh yeah and couple of friends were "sissi"'s (I mean Come on!) and they were just the same our company did. They legged it more, we had vehicles. Basically, what I heard was that they made pranks of to other companies. And they are just light-infantry. Jääkäri-komppania would be I'd guess heavy infantry since we had a moderate amount of mechanization and AT-weapons. Then a friend who stayed as an NCO for another 6-months said that those who are coming after are going to have to walk alot because they are just infantry! Now, I don't know what that actually means, do we actually hace "infantry" as opposed to "jaegers" I hope I never find out.

[Adar]

We do? We have plenty of "guerilla" companies that organized into batallions if push comes to shove. They are called "sissi" and they are basically light infantry who have no other means of transport except their legs. The are supposed to go behind enemy lines and harass them if they can. A more elite branch of that are "sissi-radisti" as in a radio-operator who are NCO's and trained in morse-code. One of my friends is one and I can say I'm not impressed.

Using the Sissies like guerilla warriors is essentially like fighting with the last Triarii for a Republican Roman General.

Okay under some circumstances (when disrupting Russian supply lines in front of the Finnish front) and a desperate measure in some circumstances (after a Russian break through into major populated areas and the main army is disorganized or collapsing).

Being able to do something well doesn't mean that it is your military doctrine.

[Hakkapeliitta]

In Finland, every man gets 6 months (At least, many times more) lasting training. That way we get 200 000 properly armed and trained soldiers in times of war, 400 000 properly trained but no so well armed soldiers more, and possibly even more. Then if situation gets even worst its possible to call 50 000-500 000 obsolutely trained soldiers with bad eguipment, but for querilla warfare, tactic all Finnish armies use, they are good enough.
And perhaps even more, tough untrained and terribly armed. These guys would get equipment from World wars.

But spine of army is those 200 000 soldiers, they can defend our country well enough. Practically we can have those additional troops, but only some of them are trained and armed (bigger problem, becouse after couple fights drafted troops are no different from professional troops.

I forgot to mention 20 000 professional soldiers, who serve all the time.

And if someone dos not want to go in army, then qo to civil service! That way all who go to army (20k every yer) are accept it and so have better morale.

Finish army:
20k professional soldiers
Peacekeepers and UN troops, around 2k i think.
200k Conscripted, well trained and armed soldiers
100-500k obsolutely trained and badly armed (assault rifle and some fatigueses)
1-500k cuickly trained and very badly armed, propably not available)
Everyone fight using querilla tactics.
200 Hornet fighters, modernly armed.
Some artillery ( i don`t know how much)
Some naval forces. (don`t know how much)
Some special forces (don`t know how much)
Tanks and armored vehicles (don`t know how much) all old, but not obsolete.

After couple fights they are not any worse what professional soldiers are, +has terrain advantage. As Vietnam proved, its vital to know country you fight in. Yet you may not succeed.

And population: 5 million. So Finland has 1/6 of its population in arms... Impressive? Possibly even more, in querilla warfare you don`t need almost any training.

Uuh, I'm almost proud about these numbers. But I know they mean all in the end. They are only a, let's say, Well, I don't know. Once you've been in the FDF then faith goes away

Edit:

200 Hornets? Since when? that was something like 60 when I last heard. And if war comes along, our most precious resource is to put those F-18's into forests and hope that the Russians won't get them in the first go. And hope that our SAM sites are concealed by the forests too.

Or maybe we have a doctrine for preservation of mobile Anti-Air-Missiles. Maybe FDF have taken notes of Chechnyan, serbian, whatever, -wars.

[Town Watch]

Uuh, I'm almost proud about these numbers. But I know they mean all in the end. They are only a, let's say, Well, I don't know. Once you've been in the FDF then faith goes away

Edit:

200 Hornets? Since when? that was something like 60 when I last heard. And if war comes along, our most precious resource is to put those F-18's into forests and hope that the Russians won't get them in the first go. And hope that our SAM sites are concealed by the forests too.

Or maybe we have a doctrine for preservation of mobile Anti-Air-Missiles. Maybe FDF have taken notes of Chechnyan, serbian, whatever, -wars.

Finland is a quite militarized country or at least pretends to be. Probably the weakest link is our navy or air force, when you think about the comparative strength between us and the opponent (Russia).

Obviously Finnish armed forces would grossly be outnumbered by Russia anyway. Honestly I think it's not out of bounds of reality, for a situation to arise where the only warring countries in the conflict are Finland and Russia, 1vs1. It happened for sure in the Winter war, the greatest bulk of Russian forces at that time mobilized, were apparently sent to the northwestern theater of operations. Incredible pressure was mounted basically against Finland alone (Russia wasn't fighting anyone else in late39-early40), and it did help the Russians in the end to win the war. They didn't lose it for sure!

If the **** hits the fan for real, like with Georgia 2008, it would still be nice to have even more of those fighter planes though, and more AA and AT missile systems. Georgia didn't have a credible air force at all, some random ground attack planes only. Today we got something like 60 F-18s.

And because we aren't a true ally of the US (NATO) we can't get good weapons on discount, like Greece, Turkey, Israel, Norway et al... This is something that every Finnish reservist wet-dreams about. We're paying the market price and some extra, usually. Not to mention that the best weapon systems are out of reach for us (maybe)? Like there's no guarantee for Finnish use of GPS in war, Russians have built their completely own satellite network, just one comparison there.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Finland is a quite militarized country or at least pretends to be. Probably the weakest link is our navy or air force, when you think about the comparative strength between us and the opponent (Russia).

Obviously Finnish armed forces would grossly be outnumbered by Russia anyway. Honestly I think it's not out of bounds of reality, for a situation to arise where the only warring countries in the conflict are Finland and Russia, 1vs1. It happened for sure in the Winter war, the greatest bulk of Russian forces at that time mobilized, were apparently sent to the northwestern theater of operations. Incredible pressure was mounted basically against Finland alone (Russia wasn't fighting anyone else in late39-early40), and it did help the Russians in the end to win the war. They didn't lose it for sure!

If the **** hits the fan for real, like with Georgia 2008, it would still be nice to have even more of those fighter planes though, and more AA and AT missile systems. Georgia didn't have a credible air force at all, some random ground attack planes only. Today we got something like 60 F-18s.

And because we aren't a true ally of the US (NATO) we can't get good weapons on discount, like Greece, Turkey, Israel, Norway et al... This is something that every Finnish reservist wet-dreams about. We're paying the market price and some extra, usually. Not to mention that the best weapon systems are out of reach for us (maybe)? Like there's no guarantee for Finnish use of GPS in war, Russians have built their completely own satellite network, just one comparison there.

Well, the FDF is more of a potential knife in the pocket, we can't kill the attacker but we can hurt him. I mean we can dish out some awesome firepower, we just can't keep doing that as long as the "next guy". And I'd like to think that our brass can use our AA capabilities a lot better than the Georgians did. Even better than the Serbs did in the 90s, and they did very well. I'd guess our doctrine is even better, if not then as long as the illusion I'm perpetrating holds on, who gives a damn?

The last thing we need is to blow our already tiny defence budget on planes that are going to be shot down. Better to use it on hardware that makes it harder for the enemy airplanes. I'd say mines, mines, mines, and shoulder fired missiles. And we need our domestic arms industry back! The government should buy some VALMET stocks, as ironic as that might be, and make some guns for the pussies of a people we have become! I mean my rifle I had in the service was from the 60s! Of course a rifle is a rifle, it works even after a hundred years if it's any good, but it makes for a poor image.

[Claudius Gothicus]

It's an economically inefficient idea, a generator of social resentment(for countries in the need to rapidly and unilaterally deploy) and provides a military shaky system as well... from morale to technical prowess.

[SLN445]

I support the idea of a few years compulsery service during peace time, but thats just me would even support at the very basic level just everyone at the certain age going through the few weeks/months of basic training.

Conscription itself should only be used in the case of a dire need of soldiers during war time in the defence of ones Country, i could support it in offensive wars if it was for the gain of my Nation though, not wars like Iraq..

[hellheaven1987]

Conscription itself should only be used in the case of a dire need of soldiers during war time in the defence of ones Country, i could support it in offensive wars if it was for the gain of my Nation though, not wars like Iraq..

So if Bush said he was going to annex Iraq would you support the conscription for Iraq War?

[SLN445]

So if Bush said he was going to annex Iraq would you support the conscription for Iraq War?

If he was going to Annex Iraq, somehow America was incapable of doing so with its current Military and i was a U.S Citizen.... then yeh maybe i would

[Lord of Lost Socks]

We have it in Finland, 6-12 months. It's definately an experience.

[saglam2000]

Instead of being conscripted into the Military people should be conscripted into a form of civil service. Like 1-2 years of serving society doing some work for the government or at least the option to do so.

[Exarch]

when i first came to america, i was really surprised when my american friends told me about the 'selective service' thing they have to register for, "in case of war with iran" or variant.

it seems that when there's war to be had-even if it aint a defensive war- then there's always ways to get around the manpower shortage

[Nevins]

when i first came to america, i was really surprised when my american friends told me about the 'selective service' thing they have to register for, "in case of war with iran" or variant.

it seems that when there's war to be had-even if it aint a defensive war- then there's always ways to get around the manpower shortage

The selective service bit is an oh crap we are involved in a world war type thing, not a "in case of war with iran" type thing.

[Matthias]

The selective service bit is an oh crap we are involved in a world war type thing, not a "in case of war with iran" type thing.

I don't know... there was Korea and Vietnam.

[Nevins]

I don't know... there was Korea and Vietnam.

Yeah, except the US military has almost 0 resemblance to the situations then. One was during the incredible demobilization following the second world war, the other was when we had enormous security guarantees because of the whole cold war bit going on.

Conscription sucks but if it's necessary you gotta do what you gotta do. If a foreign country invades I wouldn't resist conscription but I wouldn't like it either. Unless it's the Yanks that are knocking, in which case I'd be leading the bayonet charge.

Why would the US invade canada? Or is this just usual baiting?

[Blaze86420]

Why would the US invade canada? Or is this just usual baiting?

Baiting.