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

181–190 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#181

Post by Kenji »

zzzcpan wrote: post #174
Kenji wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I felt that way when I was called in for evaluation as a teenager. I am no pacifist. I definitely subscribe to the non-aggression principle, but a defensive war is always justified. I'd die for certain things I believe in, too. I just wanna decide that for myself and serve when I want. How dare the state make this decision for me.

It's all propaganda. Every war is based on this non-aggression principle and is a defensive war, offensive wars are long gone. If those in power want to fight a war on another country's soil, they simply invent a group of people they "need" to protect there, demonize the enemy and go to war there. Like Russia was "defending" russians in Georgia.

That's why I go by my own definition of defensive war, and not the government's ;)

And it's one more reason not to comply with conscription and sabotaging this authoritarian practice.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#182

Post by 627467 »

theBobBob wrote: post #149

The trend seems to be lately to end conscription or national service, as Sweden did itself, but is this the first time in recent history that a country introduced or reintroduced conscription?

You'll see that many European nations ended conscription during the last decade(Sweden in 2010)[1]. If anything this seems to signal a new trend: reactivating conscription.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#183

Post by koolba »

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…

> What do you do with a conscript who never wanted to be there and possibly fundamentally isn't suited to military life anyway gives up? Threaten them with legal action?

Military jail.

> What do you do if they sort of do what they're told, but not really putting any effort into it?

Crap assignments (ex: peel these 1000 potatoes then go clean that latrine) or military jail.

Both are surprisingly motivating.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#184

Post by Kenji »

trentmb wrote: post #157
Kenji wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I felt that way when I was called in for evaluation as a teenager. I am no pacifist. I definitely subscribe to the non-aggression principle, but a defensive war is always justified. I'd die for certain things I believe in, too. I just wanna decide that for myself and serve when I want. How dare the state make this decision for me.

> but a defensive war is always justified Really? If a foreign power intervened in, say, ethnic cleansing, defense would be justified?

Ethnic cleansing by itself violates the non-aggression principle, but nice try.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#185

Post by qaq »

zilean wrote: post #177
qaq wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no independent ultra-right it's just another face of the same ruling group. The things they declare are coordinated by Kremlin. The "crazy" talk about Ukraine that started even prior to 2004 by "ultra-right" leaders was just 1st phase of prep. I would strongly caution against dismissing their msg. because they are voiced by ultra-right.

> There is no independent ultra-right it's just another face of the same ruling group. Cant agree. Also this is a slippery slope that could apply to western countries as well and we dont want to go there. > The "crazy" talk about Ukraine that started even prior to 2004 by "ultra-right" leaders was just 1st phase of prep. Again, Ukraine problematic is objective. Alaska and NK is not. Not from todays Russia perspective…

It's not a slippery slope if people are given access to resources, time on state owned TV stations, and hold positions of power they are part of Kremlin there are no alternative sources of power or resources.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#186

Post by seppin »

pinum wrote: post #62
robert_foss wrote: post #44

So to add some needed background information to this: Every 18 year old has been forced to submit a form stating if they want to be conscripted. That's about 100k people every year. Out of the 100k, about 20k state that they do want to be conscripted. Out of the 20k that say yes, 4k are selected during a screening process that evaluates physical and mental fitness. So there are no less than 2 points where you can opt…

That doesn't sound like conscription, then. If they didn't have enough people saying yes, do they start drawing from the "no" pile?

> That doesn't sound like conscription

It's not, but the headline serves as a catalyst for a conversation people want to have anyways.

That's how it works, folks.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#187

Post by icambron »

mikeash wrote: post #109
icambron wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sol…

The goal is not to get invaded in the first place. If you can make the conquest too expensive for the enemy then they won't try it, even if it's also expensive for you. Obviously this didn't work for Afghanistan, but their example can help it work for others. Edit: if you become part of a larger war then it can also be advantageous to make the occupation painful for the enemy when it happens. The more you hurt them,…

Agreed that the goal is to not get invaded. That's why a country that has been recently invaded by two different countries is a poor example of someone for whom deterrence worked. Perhaps the threat of a war of attrition is an effective way to do this in general, but supporting that argument requires identifying countries for whom it worked, not a country for whom it failed spectacularly.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#188

Post by executesorder66 »

entropyneur wrote: post #57

I am quite surprised by the number of people here (and even larger numbers elsewhere this is being discussed) who don't seem to have any ethical problem with conscription. Thought the idea of killer slaves was completely off limits in the West. Now all of a sudden we are debating cost effectiveness. Guess I thought wrong.

> seem to have any ethical problem with conscription.

Here's my personal perspective:

I was born in 1991, in South Africa. South Africa was involved in the South Africa Border War[0] from 1966 to 1989. Because of this war, we had conscription up until around 1994.

So I have no obligation to join our military, nor do I want to. (It has become really shitty since after the war). I look at my father and his generation. None of them wanted to go to the army because it seemed like a waste of time, and no one believed in the war. But they went anyway because it's better than going to jail for 2 years.

Reading up on the war, I also don't agree with the justification behind it at all. Nevertheless I would have loved to be conscripted into the army. A 2 year (paid) break from studies and/or work. A time to get super fit, learn new skills, make new friends. And the best part of it, is that no one can give you shit for it because it's expected of everyone.

I really wish I had the time/money to just take 2 years off (where I am provided with food and shelter by someone else) and I can just focus on self improvement.

I mean, I could join the army voluntarily, but it sucks, we are not at war(less to do, less to learn, less exciting etc), and it puts me back 2 years in my career. (But if everyone was forced to do it, I wouldn't really be 2 years behind)

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#189

Post by rodgerd »

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…

> Conscription seems counter-productive to me.

"The Chiefs of Staff do not want a conscripted mob of punks, freaks, and junkies and riff-radd, a quarter of a million hooligans on its hands with nothing to do except peel potatoes at Aldershot. The generals are afraid that this would turn it into an ordinary army. [Like the one that won World Wars I and II - Ed.]"

- The Complete Yes Prime Minister: The Diaries of the Right Hon. James Hacker

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#190

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

komali2 wrote: post #72
67726e wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, it worked for my uncle. The judge gave him the option to join the Marines or go to prison. He chose the former and he ended up becoming a productive member of society.

I've never heard of this type of judgement. Was this in the USA? What was your uncle's crime?

Happens quite frequently from what I'm told. Judges have quite a bit of discretion sometimes and try to sentence intelligently.

[anecdote] I used to know someone who was an addict. Judge gave her the choice of going on probation for a year, or 45 days in jail. The catch was if she took the probation offer but was picked up for drug offenses in that time, it was an immediate sentence of a year in jail.

She took the 45 days. Better the devil you know than the one you can't control! [/anecdote]

Post reply on HN