Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden brings back military conscription

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#81

Post by rocky1138 »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #55
BurningFrog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.

You don't need massive air and naval power to be very tough to attack. All you have to do is see the Afghan wars, both Russian and American, for great examples. They had no airforce and no need for naval forces. A large armed and mobile force is very able to put up solid resistance to pretty much anything you can throw at it save for nukes which will likely never be used.

> save for nukes which will likely never be used.

save for nukes which will likely never be used, again.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#82

Post by 013a »

67726e wrote: post #47
BurningFrog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.

> It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Afghanistan would beg to differ... > Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself. Unless the goal of fighting a war is to wipe the opposing side off the face of the earth, no, it's a credible defense. You bleed the enemy until they lose the will to fight.

His argument isn't that you need air and naval. Its that air and naval are, generally, more cost effective.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#83

Post by icambron »

67726e wrote: post #47
BurningFrog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.

> It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Afghanistan would beg to differ... > Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself. Unless the goal of fighting a war is to wipe the opposing side off the face of the earth, no, it's a credible defense. You bleed the enemy until they lose the will to fight.

> Afghanistan would beg to differ.

You're not looking at this from the Afghan perspective. From the American and Russian perspective, yes, occupying Afghanistan is a painful deathtrap. But for the Afghans their occupation is...also a painful deathtrap. Eventually winning (or even sort of winning) a war of low-tech attrition involves sacrificing a lot of lives, losing political control, and having foreign soldiers soldiers patrol your territory imposing their own laws. Afghanistan has to go through all this because they don't have a credible way to deter an invasion. That's why they keep getting invaded!

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#84

Post by yjgyhj »

nateberkopec wrote: post #40

What's the point of conscription? Surely there must be a good reason. Boosting the numbers of your military by forcefully bringing in some barely-motivated, hardly-trained conscripts that are discharged just a few months after completing basic training seems ineffective. Is there some larger "get the public used to military service" social goal?

We have a long history of conscription. I think it's a good thing. I think it's the moral choice when it comes to defence (but obviously not enough). That is because a conscript is not a professional soldier - and a conscript will never invade another country without good reason. Conscripts will defend their land, but not unjustly attack others.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#85

Post by cjslep »

BurningFrog wrote: post #29
zmb_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'if this isn't for you then you can go home' I did compulsory military service, including in a leadership role. "If you don't do what you're told, you don't get go home next weekend." Worked very well for conscripts, who usually get to go home for many weekends (unless on exercises). There are also many smaller privileges you can take a way for smaller infractions. Although when you have a defensive military that do…

A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.

You would be interested in the Winter War between Finland and Soviet Russia in 1939. Finland absolutely outperformed the Red Army to such an extreme that it convinced Hitler invading Soviet Russia was not going to be a problem at all.

Nothing more entertaining in my mind than Finns chucking logs into tank treads to disable an entire armored division.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#86

Post by kaitnieks »

zilean wrote: post #54
thedevil wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see propaganda as very indicative of future conflicts, especially in countries like Russia, where the news stories are more heavily influenced by the government. I think propaganda is necessary to support a war effort (and avoid insurrection). Think of it this way: If you're a soldier and your government tells you to invade a random country with nice people, how willing are you to fight? On the other hand, if your…

> If you're a soldier and your government tells you to invade a random country with nice people, how willing are you to fight? Ironically Western counties are very good at it.

Well, no, not really. Western countries always get a huge backlash for any military activity in any region. This is where the propaganda and state controlled media opinion would be very useful, at least for the military.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#87

Post by LanceH »

maxerickson wrote: post #19
nabla9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was there motivational problems among Brits in WWI and WWII? Maybe there is difference when you train to defend your own country versus going to some foreign country to fight abstract and vague threat or advance foreign policy goals. At least here in Finland the motivation comes from clear and well defined threat. Enemy comes always from the east, if we don't fight we suffer other ways. >What do you do with a conscri…

In Band of Brothers (the HBO docudrama), the featured unit are paratroopers. They discuss volunteering for the more severe duty because they think they will then be around similarly motivated individuals.

Still true. You can see the difference between the Marines and the army. You also see a huge difference between the professional forces of the US and the conscripted forces.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#88

Post by raverbashing »

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

How do you motivate a conscript? When I was in the British Army, which is volunteer only, commanding a basic training troop if someone was wanted to give up we could say to them 'if this isn't for you then you can go home' (of course we did coach and mentor people to help them, I mean in cases where people just give up and stop soldiering when an exercise gets tough). They usually worked extremely hard to get into th…

They get the motivated people first

They're aiming for a low number, so it should be easy to achieve

Of course, there might be some punishment as well if a person fails to perform to the expected level of duty

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#89

Post by zmb_ »

BurningFrog wrote: post #29
zmb_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'if this isn't for you then you can go home' I did compulsory military service, including in a leadership role. "If you don't do what you're told, you don't get go home next weekend." Worked very well for conscripts, who usually get to go home for many weekends (unless on exercises). There are also many smaller privileges you can take a way for smaller infractions. Although when you have a defensive military that do…

A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines. Of course, a 10m country will never have a really credible defense against nuclear super power Russia by itself.

> 200k dudes with guns

Conscript military doesn't mean that you just teach everyone to dig a hole and sit in it with a rifle. You train conscripts into every role you need in a 200k strong modern military. Including operators and maintainers of the hi-tech death machines, sigint operatives, radar operators, tank crews, missile forces, officers of all kinds, and yes, the guys that dig holes and sit in them with rifles.

One of the strengths of a conscript military is that you get everyone, which includes all kinds of current and future skill sets. Modern conscript armies aim to put that expertise into the best possible use.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#90

Post by xeromal »

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

How do you motivate a conscript? When I was in the British Army, which is volunteer only, commanding a basic training troop if someone was wanted to give up we could say to them 'if this isn't for you then you can go home' (of course we did coach and mentor people to help them, I mean in cases where people just give up and stop soldiering when an exercise gets tough). They usually worked extremely hard to get into th…

Would you consider Israeli mandatory service conscription?
Post reply on HN