Conscription

[kirottu]

Just add couple of things to Meshugger post...

 

Man between 18-28 years old makes a choice of going to army(6 months, 9 months or 12 months) or civil servantship(13 months) or jail time, which is, I think, half the time you

Edited March 29, 2010 by kirottu

[jero cvmi]

Here's my story:

 

I served 12 months compulsory service, few years ago.

 

It was the biggest waste of time, money and energy in my life. I feel very, very bad for not skipping it by pretending to have health problems or something.

 

In the beginning there was a month of so called training which was basically marching up and down all day like morons, doing chores and shouting at eachother. Oh and we also fired a rifle once.

 

The rest of the service consisted of things that are either

a: unnecessary, like waking up late at night to guard absolutely nothing in the middle of nowhere, or

b: should be done by paid workers, like waitoring in officers' clubs, paperwork, maintenance, digging, carrying, cleaning, mopping, brooming, etc. etc.

 

There was also some spare time so we could invest our parents' money in the local "economy" of some redneck village near the camp that would otherwise just die off or get into agriculture or something, instead of strip clubs and fast food.

 

Basically i've come to the conclusion that the closest thing to an army here is the part that's made up by paid soldiers, i don't know how good they are but at least they are soldiers not errand boys. Too bad they share the same lowlife officers with the conscripted ones. The rest of it is just cover up for getting work done for free, spending tax money, and supporting some (a lot of) lazy douches with political connections.

 

As for how it changed my life, i most certainly didn't learn anything new, as i already knew how to mop the floor and do the dishes. Yay manhood!!

I did get to watch a lot of pr0n and play a lot of games though, so after all it wasn't a complete waste of time *sigh*.

[Walsingham]

I liked meshugger's point about how it dilutes and demystifies the Forces. I'd not heard that one before.

 

I am genuinely not trying to be rude, but some of teh stories on here MAY reflect a rather lacklustre approach to the training by the powers that were, rather than what the experience can be.

 

But then part of that will be that if you expect EVERYONE to do it then you have to tone things down. As I say, I think the compulsory service should include non-military and elss physical options which are nevertheless seriously testing and which expose the individual to crap they wouldn't choose to do. Not sure what that might include besides manual labour. Perhaps forcing the weedier specimens to argue with LoF.

[Flouride]

Man between 18-28 years old makes a choice of going to army(6 months, 9 months or 12 months) or civil servantship(13 months) or jail time, which is, I think, half the time you

[Killian Kalthorne]

You're from Cuba?!?!

So?

I just didn't know that. I am sure you have a few choice words about LoF's perceptions about your home country.

[Gorth]

But then part of that will be that if you expect EVERYONE to do it then you have to tone things down. As I say, I think the compulsory service should include non-military and elss physical options which are nevertheless seriously testing and which expose the individual to crap they wouldn't choose to do. Not sure what that might include besides manual labour. Perhaps forcing the weedier specimens to argue with LoF.

In Denmark, way back in time when my hair still had little grey in it, the draft was a "lottery". You would pick a number from a ballot and the lower the number, the more likely you were to get military service. The higher numbers got sent to the civil defence and the highest numbers went "free". I ended up in the civil defence and had generally a good time (apart from being irritated by not being able to dispose over my time myself). I was tought things like firefighting, rescue service in disaster areas, etc. Not too bad really. Oh, and we got to crawl through a lot of sewers and subterranean tunnels too, trying to rescue those 80kg dummies that the trainers had hidden down there

 

Edit: Never got to shoot our self with those little Atropine injection thingies though. Turns out that the cold war ended before there was any real need for them anyway.

[Walsingham]

Those atropine injectors are loaded for bear with morphine. The comment from our instructors was that even with the morphine, you'd probably rather be dead.

[Killian Kalthorne]

"You want me to stick this in my heart!"

 

Those things were wicked looking. At least the ones I had access to while in the Navy were.

[Gfted1]

Um, they werent meant to be injected in the heart. US injectors have not only Atropine but also 2 Pam Chloride and were designed to be slammed against your thigh or rump to initiate the autoinjection.

[Walsingham]

Yeah. They go in the heart. Imagine Sand trying to inject one of his mates!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Its just a wee needle! Don't be a cry baby!

 

BWAAHAAAHAAAAA!

[Walsingham]

Its just a wee needle! Don't be a cry baby!

 

*gristly crunch*

 

BWAAHAAAHAAAAA!

 

~~

 

LOL

[Humodour]

Those atropine injectors are loaded for bear with morphine. The comment from our instructors was that even with the morphine, you'd probably rather be dead.

I don't get it. Why the hell would you inject yourself with deadly nightshade? That **** is one of the few true hallucinogens out there, and the dose-response curve is amazingly steep.

 

Is this for heart attacks or something?

[Gorth]

Is this for heart attacks or something?

It gives you a fighting chance to survive nerve gas (sarin etc.) attacks, which was in plentiful supply everywhere during the cold war. Part of your abc training (atomic, biological and chemical).

[Humodour]

Is this for heart attacks or something?

It gives you a fighting chance to survive nerve gas (sarin etc.) attacks, which was in plentiful supply everywhere during the cold war. Part of your abc training (atomic, biological and chemical).

 

Oh. Cool.

[cronicler]

In my country, conscripts are used in the same vein as US uses National Guard. SAR, Forest Fires, Patrolling wilderness, Disaster Relief, Temp solution to unemployment...

 

You learn that most of human population is still under 100 in IQ scale

You get to be unpaid muscle (infantry) used for... well whatever is needed . Ranges from construction worker to being a road sign.

Or you get ot be a guard at a rural outpost (armor)

Or you get to be unpaid rural policemen, usually under a "little" human with big complexes (gendarmerie)

Or you draw a really short stick and play target for terrorists (thou nowadays the army is trying not to send green conscripts to problem zones)

 

 

What does it add to you? some physical fitness, a lot of stress, and a complete loss of faith in most of humanity. And you get to shoot a bit. Like 150 9mm and 30 or so 5.56 in total. And even some Garand too! :D

[Humodour]

You learn that most of human population is still under 100 in IQ scale

 

If I had to estimate, I'd say roughly 50%.

[Walsingham]

I think one of the key points which (I think) hasn't been dwelt on yet is that conscripts suck at counter-insurgency and peace-support/nation building. The real point of conscripts is to clutter of the landscape and soak up firepower in a total war. I really don't see that being a key problem at the moment.

[Monte Carlo]

Recent historians now look at the vast conscript armies of WW2 with a revisionist eye in a way that would have been objectionable in the 70's or even 80's. The American and British forces of WW2, for example, were the product of liberal democracies. The combat effectiveness, man for man, of these armies wasn't as effective as that of the German, Russian and Japanese soldiers. The theory being, of course, that the latter came from highly militarized, authoritarian societies. That a mere company of German soldiers could halt a US divisional advance for a couple of days in NW Europe tells it's own story. They were done for by a lack of logistics and manpower, not the quality of the Landser.

 

So the society from which the conscript hails is obviously an issue. And at the risk of sounding like a crotchety old git, I wonder if many of the Kids of Today are up for it. Clearly not the ones who volunteer for regular service though, because even a cursory look at the record in places like Afghanistan shows that we can still produce warriors. This is why the small, highly trained professional army always trumps the conscripted horde.

 

Technology is another. Look at the US army - even the lowliest infantry pfc is required to operate and understand a large amount of equipment, tactics, doctrine and rules of engagement. This means that relatively junior NCOs have become even more important than before and the average educational attainment of US army sergeants (equivalent of a British army corporal) is very impressive.

 

Conscripts don't really fit into this, especially not on an 18-24 month service cycle. Personally I'd role them as other people here have mentioned: non-combat logistics, static defence, civil support / emergency response to natural disasters. Having said that, those are still important roles and I suspect that young people might well benefit from the experience. The few that then want to move onto regular military service from that point could then do so, both parties win.

[Enoch]

Conscripts don't really fit into this, especially not on an 18-24 month service cycle. Personally I'd role them as other people here have mentioned: non-combat logistics, static defence, civil support / emergency response to natural disasters. Having said that, those are still important roles and I suspect that young people might well benefit from the experience. The few that then want to move onto regular military service from that point could then do so, both parties win.

In the US, we hire contractors to do most of that stuff. It's expensive, but most of those tasks are more about specialized equipment and planning than about raw manpower. I have no idea what we could possibly think of to do with all the conscripts if there were some universal service requirement.

 

 

For my part, I have done no military service, and I'm now too old for the emergency-only conscription law currently on the books. But I am a paid employee of the United States governement. I work with a lot of veterans (vets get a preference for civil service jobs), and the experience seems to have benefitted them. But my office is largely professional employees, and my co-workers with military experience were nearly all officers (my immediate supervisor was a Major in the Army JAG), so that may not be a particularly representative sample.

[Walsingham]

I know my own experience of training has been that - with the exception of the PTIs - it was entirely humane. We were treated very very well, and wherever possible had it explained to us what was going on and exactly why. It was a million miles from the public image of training from Full Metal Jacket, and the evidence it still delivers is hoofing around Afghanistan as we speak.

 

I mention this because another feature of full conscription is that quality of training cadres nosedives to deliver bulk. They haven't any choice. My parents' generation did national service and their stories of NCOs is uniformly idle bastards, while the professional army is stuffed to the gills with top class veterans. So it's a case of comparing apples with oranges. I don't think full conscription would be the same experience.

[Monte Carlo]

I was a reservist for five years, obviously back in the days when it involved digging trenches all over Westphalia waiting for the 'Orange' forces to send 99th Shock Army rumbling over the steppe. For those of you in the know, it involved old-skool steel helmets, soggy '58 webbing, SLRs and puttees.

 

Now reservists are the backbone of all sorts of support functions in sandy, dangerous places. A well-motivated reservist is worth two conscripts in my humble, at least.

 

Maybe I'd tie conscription into the reserves in some way, so that the little loves get gentle exposure to the military. 'Civil Aid' units on the Territorial model for three years... I think it might work.

 

Ten-sHun!

MC

[213374U]

For the others here, what would you do if your country introduced compulsory military service for 18-20 year olds? Would you go to prison rather than serve? For the purposes of my question, imagine your country is not at war and the service was not necessarily combat arm / operational (my view is that modern conscript armies would be a hindrance on the battlefield, including rear echelon roles).

If my country did that, I'd GTFO. We are supposed to have a professional military over here... only, "professional" is the one word you'd never use to describe it. Low morale, outdated practices, dismal preparation, gaming the system as a form of life, chronic equipment shortages at all levels (I remember the ****ing recruiter jokingly telling me "you'll jump, if there's money for fuel, hopefully" when I enlisted for airborne service) -- that is the sort of traits that will draw your attention from my country's military.

 

Of course, my view may be a bit jaded by the fact that our army was "professionalized" (LOL!) overnight, so to speak, to fulfill one of the promises made during campaign time by the party in power. The result was disastrous, and the force is, from what I've seen, professional on paper only. Further, the military estate has a terrible reputation and has to bear some very ugly stigmas that stem from its role in the civil war and following dictatorship, and as a result, nurturing the military is very unprofitable business, from a political standpoint.

 

So I guess the answer is very much dependent on where the person giving it hails from. I not only have intellectual compunctions against conscription (here's a little something: try to find differences between that and slavery), but also experience that leads me to believe that a conscripted fighting force can only be truly effective if the homeland's breadbasket is being overrun by waves of panzers, perhaps.

 

On the other hand, I agree with Mes, and some good things can come out of a little military duty. The best thing I got out of my time there was the bit about knowing myself and my limits much better than I previously thought possible, but this was only after spending a few hellish months in the green berets capacitation (basic) course. And I know for a fact that 99% of personnel don't come anywhere near that sort of physical and psychological exertion, so there. I also agree with Wals that some sort of "give back to the community" compulsory period wouldn't be too bad, if only because that forces people from different backgrounds to live and work together -- that sort of reality check is invaluable and very difficult to experience otherwise. That is the only other positive experience I got.

 

Eventually, I gave in and played the system to weasel my way out of that ****hole as best I could. So that's the story of how what is for all intents and purposes a conscription military can ruin a military vocation. I'd hazard a guess and say that's universally a bad thing and the exact opposite of what is intended.

 

So, as a rule of thumb, conscription = bad.

[Monte Carlo]

(here's a little something: try to find differences between that and slavery)

 

I presume you are from Spain. Anyhow, comparing conscription to slavery is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? Without getting all Heinlein / Starship Troopers on yo ass, if you live in a modern Western capitalist democracy (especially in Europe) you get loads of stuff that gazillions of folks from third world / failed states would happily serve two years for to enjoy. So, African child soldier = slavery. European kid in khaki peeling potatoes for two years = walk in the park.

 

This, of course, is steering the topic to 'soft mercenary service' whereby a person joins a foreign military for that very reason. In the British army we have Gurkhas and, increasingly, soldiers from the Commonwealth. America has a lot of Latin Americans. These are people who are buying into a better way of life by, let's face it, risking their lives in some of the most dangerous places on earth. I take my hat off to them and would swap them for large swathes of the indigenous population in my country.

 

So, as a rule of thumb, conscription = bad

 

What is emerging from this more-interesting-than-I-envisaged topic is that there are two themes developing. The first is that conscription, from a purely military POV is a crock. I buy into that. OTOH, point two is that even those of you that hated it intensely seem to see some benefit in the experience, however fleeting.

 

The quintessence of that experience (i.e. overcoming hardship in a team of people with whom you have nothing in common) is priceless. From this POV conscription has something going for it. There is a malaise in modern society, am increasingly wondering if a way of capturing that experience and the compulsory delivering of it to 18-20 year olds is possible without the massive problems of mass conscription.

 

Thankyou to all who have shared their experiences so far, maybe now we can hear from the regular armed services veterans too and see what they think.

 

Cheers

MC