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

301–310 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#301

Post by degorov »

johan_larson wrote: post #120

"In Russia all men aged 18-27 have to spend a year in the armed forces." I don't think that's correct. College graduates only have to serve a few weeks, IIRC.

Not true. Graduates serve for 1 year just as all other men. People who graduated from colleges with military departments get the rank of lieutenant and indeed serve a few weeks, but as of 2017 not too much universities have those departments and even if they do, not every student can enroll there as there are certain requirements for health and physical abilities.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#302

Post by mrob »

vidarh wrote: post #288
mrob wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. If you give them access to the whole military machine you greatly increase the opportunities for sabotage. With the traditional rifles in trenches style each individual conscript has very limited chance to fight back, and you can always call them traitors and murder them if they try.

I agree. In my refusal to serve in the Norwegian military, this was one of my arguments. Coupled with pointing out that I could not guarantee that I would agree with the political views of any future regime, and so I considered it immoral to be put in a position where I might be threatened into using violence in favour of a cause I might fundamentally be opposed to. I also made it clear that should that happen, I'd c…

Whether you consider killing officers moral or not, as a practical matter I think sabotage would more effectively discourage people from taking conscripts. The military is well optimized to cope with the death of personnel. Frag an officer and the chain of command does its thing and everything continues as normal. There's not even much deterrent value because the officer was fully bought into the values of the system and ready to die. But a modern military is highly dependent on bureaucracy, and that seems more vulnerable to disruption. Falsified records, misplaced parts, incorrect maintenance, etc. could cause some real problems. The conscript might even be able to pass it off as an honest mistake if they got caught, letting them continue their resistance.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#303

Post by zzzcpan »

coldtea wrote: post #297
mrob wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. If you give them access to the whole military machine you greatly increase the opportunities for sabotage. With the traditional rifles in trenches style each individual conscript has very limited chance to fight back, and you can always call them traitors and murder them if they try.

> Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. On the contrary, conscription, and armies consisting of the population of a country in general (as opposed to mercenary armies) are a democratic achievement of (among a few other factors) the French Revolution. In the actual times of slavery, e.g. in Ancient Greece and Rome it was free men that first…

"as opposed to it being professional soldiers ready to be used against the people"

Things have changed a lot since then, especially with radio and television. Conscription is no longer a democratic achievement, you can brainwash people to go against anyone you want.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#304

Post by vidarh »

coldtea wrote: post #299
vidarh wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be so. What does happen on the other hand is that many countries throw people in prison for refusing to serve. This is the case in Norway, for example. And if you do show up and get processed, once you are part of the military you risk being put in military prison if you the subsequently refuse to serve. This is what happens during peace time.

> That may be so. What does happen on the other hand is that many countries throw people in prison for refusing to serve. And rightly so. The only reason the country exists in the first place, is that people were willing to fight to establish it, and to serve and fight to defend it. Else it would be not some magical global brothership of unicorns and love, but what was there before modern countries: empires and feuda…

Being willing to fight for something is orthogonal to being forced to fight for something under threat of prison.

Most of those who kept up the fight for Norways freedom from German occupation under World War II, for example, were not military conscripts - the military surrendered quickly - but civilians who formed resistance groups.

The idea that you need to be willing to let yourself be coerced into slavery to prove your willingness to fight is deeply offensive to me.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#305

Post by zeveb »

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.

> A credible deterrent in 2020 is not 200k dudes with guns. It's air and naval power. Expensive and complex hi tech death machines.

I don't know — that's certainly the reason why many nations have gotten rid of conscription, but I think it may be mistaken. Sure, in the initial stages of a force-on-force, peer conflict it's going to be all about complex, hi-tech machines, but what about sustained, low-level operations. fewer than 200,000 dudes with guns & bombs have given the U.S. a bit of a pause in Afghanistan & Iraq, after all.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#306

Post by zeveb »

Sharlin wrote: post #289
pilsetnieks wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally cannot use conscripts for anything of "operators and maintainers of the hi-tech death machines, sigint operatives, radar operators, tank crews, missile forces, officers." First of all, most of them take at least a year to get up to speed, if not more, and they have to maintain their competence. You cannot just release a conscript after his year long stint, and call him up ten years later - the ten year…

> Oh, and officers by their very definition cannot be conscripts. There are different definitions of "officer". In Finland conscripts are trained to rank and file, NCO (Corporal/Sergeant), and junior officer (2nd Lieutenant) roles. Both reserve NCOs and officers may be later promoted if they accumulate a certain amount of refresher training days and are otherwise seen fit for the promotion. This system, where the maj…

Wasn't one Linus Torvalds a conscript 2nd lieutenant in the Finnish forces?

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#307

Post by jib »

Joyfield wrote: post #280
jib wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swedish conscription (before it was cancelled) was very close to voluntary anyways. When I did the tests for it, about 20 years ago, only about one in five or so were picked from the tests, and it was trivial to avoid being picked if you didn't want to do it. You motivate people the same way you motivate anyone I guess - you're here, you can make the best of it and learn some useful skills, or you can be spending the…

I got jail time for refusing. I was born 1975. My reasons for refusing? I was totally uninterested in it.

Sorry :(. 1977 here, just told them I couldn't sleep from home and had no interest in it at all and that was that.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#308

Post by ValentineC »

executesorder66 wrote: post #300
ValentineC wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 am a former conscript. We were paid approximately $350 USD a month and rarely had time for personal improvement. The way I see it: many of us…

I don't remember the exact figures, but my uncle said he wished he did an extra year in the army, because the money was pretty good. (to be fair, he also really didn't feel like going to university) Why were you conscripted and not your peers? > rarely had time for personal improvement. I guess it depends on which army you are in, and at what point in history. My dad joined the Signal Units (He got a degree in Electr…

> Why were you conscripted and not your peers?

All male citizens here are conscripted. Females and foreigners aren't.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#309

Post by vidarh »

mrob wrote: post #302
vidarh wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. In my refusal to serve in the Norwegian military, this was one of my arguments. Coupled with pointing out that I could not guarantee that I would agree with the political views of any future regime, and so I considered it immoral to be put in a position where I might be threatened into using violence in favour of a cause I might fundamentally be opposed to. I also made it clear that should that happen, I'd c…

Whether you consider killing officers moral or not, as a practical matter I think sabotage would more effectively discourage people from taking conscripts. The military is well optimized to cope with the death of personnel. Frag an officer and the chain of command does its thing and everything continues as normal. There's not even much deterrent value because the officer was fully bought into the values of the system…

Sabotage probably would be, sure, but keep in mind this was a hypothetical situation described in a letter to the Department of Justice to make it very clear to them how unwilling I was to serve. While I stick by the overall sentiment, it was not shaped out of a need to be as efficient as possible, but to sound as offensive as possible.

E.g. the described situation was a hypothetical one where the Norwegian government had decided to use the military in a way I found morally unconscionable. In practice I consider that very unlikely - offensive forces are all volunteers in Norway, so the conscripts are used for purely defensive roles. It was the principle of it first and foremost for me.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#310

Post by zeveb »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #285
mrob wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conscription is slavery, and many conscripts will consider themselves to have a moral obligation to resist slavery. If you give them access to the whole military machine you greatly increase the opportunities for sabotage. With the traditional rifles in trenches style each individual conscript has very limited chance to fight back, and you can always call them traitors and murder them if they try.

> Conscription is slavery I abhor hyperbole. Slavery is the legal ownership of one person over another person and their progeny. Since they are property, slaves have absolutely no rights or any access to the legal system. You commanding officer cannot rape or kill you with impunity. He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death. Conscripts also get paid, while slaves do not and are well fed…

> He/She cannot force you to do fight with another conscript to the death.

But, of course, he can force a conscript to fight an adversary to the death.

Post reply on HN