Live data from Hacker News

Sweden brings back military conscription

bbc.co.uk

381–390 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#381

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…

Speaking as someone who went through compulsory service (12 months at age 20 in Norwegian air force), I don't think "motivation" is the problem.

Once someone is in the system, they can of course be flake out, but the routine and schedule both limit just how unmotivated individuals can be. In Norway, if you're a contrarian and refuse to do push-ups along with everyone else, eventually they'll send you home. That happens all the time, and I don't think it's a problem for the military: After all, they can just grab more people from the pool of candidates. But most people, once they're in the system, just don't dare to rebel.

There are countries, like Israel, which do make compulsory service work. My own experience in Norway was that the service was not executed seriously or even competently. Kids entered in with zero belief that war was ever likely to occur, and the attitude was that if it did occur, they were not going to play a meaningful part. This attitude was entirely validated by the ridiculously half-assedness of the training itself.

Generally, the basic training was more like a taster than real training. I was taught to fire a gun, but I probably fired 30 shots in total, and didn't feel I got good at it or comfortable wielding a gun. I was taught to throw a live hand grenade — one throw. Presumably they wanted to save on materiel. At one point, we were to do a rather exciting two-day war simulation in the woods, but around midnight, just as we were getting to the "dig a trench and watch for enemy patrols" stage, some colonel stepped in and shouted that we should all pack up because a lot of people were leaving for the Christmas holiday the next morning.

Also, the way compulsory service worked in Norway, you had one month of basic training, followed by 11 months of being stationed at some base. If you're, say, an army engineer, you might have some useful experiences, but for most people, it's just sitting around doing very little, and learning nothing. The real jobs are done by career professionals.

Long story short: If you want a good army you have to train them well, not treat them with kid gloves. Norway's system lead to a situation where a lot of young kids were given a small, not very serious look at military life, after which they'd go home and promptly forget everything. (Not that I'd have appreciated harder training at the time; I really didn't want to be there.) Part of fixing that would be to invest in recruits, just like you do with a regular army: Better materiel, more simulations, more specialization, and so on.

That still leaves the problem of what you do when people go back to real life. Norway's solution was to recall part of the population for a one-week "repetition" exercise every decade or so, which of course was just as silly and half-assed as the original endeavour.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A slave is property." Yes, and so are citizens of a state. "Inherent to slavery is some form of dehumanization." No. The definition of a slave (first hit on google) is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." In ancient times, people who lost wars may have been subjugated as slaves, but there was no pretense that they were less human. I think you might be thinking of racial slavery…

> be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. No, I'm not thinking of racial slavery. I'm thinking of slavery defined by Aristotle, whose view is representative of the classical world: " "anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else…he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a to…

well if we are not following the same definition, then there is no use in arguing. The wikipedia article on Slavery refers to Aristotle's definition as a specific type of slavery called "chattel slavery", but suggests a more generalized definition:

"Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against his or her will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour, to refer to such situations. However – and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word – slaves may have some rights and/or protections, according to laws and/or customs."

Being forced to work extra to keep the money from your labor you already worked and being partially owned by the state is de facto slavery, even if it doesn't meet Aristotle's definition.

> "That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery"

The argument I made was not that the lack of absolute freedom equals slavery. Even in the absence of a state, people will rationally form voluntary contracts that would limit their freedoms for mutual benefits. Provided that these contracts are entered into consensually is key to whether or not it is slavery or not.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#383
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple degrees of slavery. Eg. The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius forbade the killing of slaves without good reason, but they were still slaves. Slave does not have to mean literally zero rights.

Being a slave means that you are property, like a pet. It also means that you are not quite recognized as a human being.

Chattel slavery isn't the only form of slavery.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that actual combat skill is a small minority of what is needed and trained in the military. Sure, the cook has a gun and knows how to use it, but otherwise he's more or less a cook only. Ditto for very very many positions both high and low skilled.

That's my whole point: since it's such a small minority already, let's take it out completely and replace it with something better.

You can't.

Armed forces are the legitimized monopoly of violence which are for better or worse absolutely necessary for the nation states of today and any time in the foreseeable future. The military's rigid command hierarchy and strict rules and ideas of duty really don't have any place in free society outside that monopoly. While it is absolutely necessary in a military to have the actions of many people dictated by the will of a single person, outside of that environment the necessity would be artificial and arguably the situation would be tantamount to slavery.

In other words it just isn't possible to recreate the structured existence of a soldier outside of a military force without extending the military well beyond the external force it must exclude itself to or legitimizing pseudo-slavery conditions. The costs of military upkeep are likewise very justifiable. Not that everything the military does is good or necessary, but the baseline of _having_ a military is fairly universally accepted as needed. Making up something else would look like a handout or a cost center and wouldn't stand up to the test of time and support.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#386
post #147
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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'm at a loss for words here, this might be the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

First, go get a dictionary and look up what slavery means.

Second, go get a history book and read about the last two world wars where conscription has been widely embraced by the belligerents. Not only did it have public support, but it was also the only thing that gave the Allies enough manpower to stay in and win the war.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's out of ~100,000 kids per year.

Oh. So they can probably just take volunteers, then. And they don't even need to take all of them.

Volunteers provided 95% of the recruiting target. Conscription is to fill the rest.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#388
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt that way when I was called in for evaluation as a teenager. I was a peace loving left-wing Swedish boy. That was maybe 8 years ago or so, I remember conscription being scrapped a year or two later. I regret not making an effort to do it. I chose to underperform in my test because I believed all is better than war. But as an adult I've changed, and realised I wouldn't quite mind dying for things like my languag…

as well as dying to not lose honor. While recognising the differences in our attitudes towards life, this evoked from me a very big WTF. Not just because your life is all you have while honor is basically someone's opinion, but also because it's not even as much as one whole step away from being prepared to kill people for your own honor.

Parent poster said they want to die (and presumably kill, for what else would risk dying?) to prevent them from _speaking a different language_ near posters's home, so I don't think killing for honor will give them pause.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The system is always the same, Russian and Finnish systems are not the same. Not even close.

Yes, but the difference between them is nowhere close to the difference between slavery and freedom or life and death.

The Russian government has killed more of its own citizens than any war has.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#390
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual terrorists generally aren't deterred by the threat of prison. You're talking about people willing to blow themselves up; they're not worried about prison.

I'm not saying it will deter them, I'm saying it's already a crime. There's nothing special about going after them for it. With our current volunteer system nothing stops a nut job from signing up. That's why they have psych exams and ongoing mental health monitoring. It's no different if you have a draft with everybody having to join. Heck, I'd bet you'd get less overall craziness (as a percentage) from the populati…

I wasn't positing psychosis; I was positing a spontaneous violent resistance movement forming as a rational response to conscription in otherwise mentally-healthy individuals: the same people who would draft-dodge, but angrier at the state and interested in seeing their country actually lose an unjust war.

You know, like you'd feel if you were an Iraqi citizen under ISIS.

Post reply on HN