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

411–418 of 418 posts

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#411

Post by Arizhel »

koolba wrote: post #405
derefr wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I'm proposing that in the event that happens, we round up those domestic terrorists, give them a swift (but fair!) trial, lock them up, and finally throw away the key. You'll find little to no sympathy from most people, including your humble commenter, for domestic terrorism and treason.

So you think people in Mosul who refuse to fight for ISIS, and violently resist them, are traitors?

Nice to know that you support terrorism.

And before you try the "ISIS isn't a government" BS line, the same logic applies to German citizens in the 1930s-40s. Apparently you think Germans who refuse to fight for Hitler are traitors.

Interesting what kind of values you support. I think people like you should be locked up and the key thrown away. Supporting mass murder is disgusting.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#412

Post by thrillgore »

BurningFrog wrote: post #73
DamnYuppie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Afghanistan was easily conquered by both the USSR and the US.

Genghis Khan did it too but it sure as hell didn't stay occupied.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#413

Post by muninn_ »

Spooky23 wrote: post #256
muninn_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever military force was in Afghanistan never posed any sort of credible threat or resistance against the US military. The "resistance" that the US military faced came in terms of the US military wanting to try and recreate the society there, and having troops attacked while just driving around or facing resistance while conducting raids. If the US military wanted to, they could have easily destroyed every single…

Huh? Who is in control there? Hint: not the US.

Control in what sense?

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#414

Post by pbhjpbhj »

LanceH wrote: post #401
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Conscription is straight up slavery. I don't see any way around that. // Which person owns you in your analysis of that being slavery? Or is being owned by another person not a part of your definition? In a democracy, you're a slave to your own country, effectively. There are people making decisions on your life, all the people voting in the country including you, no? It may be wrong, just doesn't look like slavery…

What does single ownership have to do with anything? Is it somehow better than any number of people can spend your life for you? What other compulsory actions does the government take that authorize the expenditure of your entire life?

>What does single ownership have to do with anything? Is it somehow better than any number of people can spend your life for you? //

No, it's not automatically better AFAICT, in practice I think it's likely to better on average. It's more that it was claimed to be "slavery" in actuality, not "like slavery" but actual slavery. So it's in some ways semantic but more it's that I think the position is substantially different to slavery - it's not just that it's a group of people, it's that it's a democratic country that you are also part of (as opposed to a corporation owning you, or an individual owning you). They're different conditions. In practice they perhaps share some [a lot of] downsides.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#415

Post by koolba »

Arizhel wrote: post #411
koolba wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm proposing that in the event that happens, we round up those domestic terrorists, give them a swift (but fair!) trial, lock them up, and finally throw away the key. You'll find little to no sympathy from most people, including your humble commenter, for domestic terrorism and treason.

So you think people in Mosul who refuse to fight for ISIS, and violently resist them, are traitors? Nice to know that you support terrorism. And before you try the "ISIS isn't a government" BS line, the same logic applies to German citizens in the 1930s-40s. Apparently you think Germans who refuse to fight for Hitler are traitors. Interesting what kind of values you support. I think people like you should be locked u…

> So you think people in Mosul who refuse to fight for ISIS, and violently resist them, are traitors?

> Nice to know that you support terrorism.

> And before you try the "ISIS isn't a government" BS line, the same logic applies to German citizens in the 1930s-40s.

I'm not the one in this thread defending domestic terrorism. And yes ISIS isn't a government so that doesn't apply. Quite the contrary, as ISIS the terrorists in your example so fighting back against them would be encouraged.

> Apparently you think Germans who refuse to fight for Hitler are traitors.

Well yes that's the definition of treason / being a traitor. You could say the same thing for Churchill/England, Roosevelt/USA,or Stalin/USSR.

> Interesting what kind of values you support. I think people like you should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Sounds like you don't particularly like freedom of speech either. To quote our great new president, "Sad!"

> Supporting mass murder is disgusting.

Damn straight. Though I fail to see how that's relevant or where anyone claimed it's not.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#416

Post by Ras_ »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #381
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…

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 happe…

In Finland I went through several hundred rounds. Wasn't even regular infantry. Served the shortest term possible in the signals corps.

Training is scheduled into three parts. 8 weeks, after which you are assigned into leadership track or your rank and file specialization. Then 5 weeks of personal specialization training and 7 weeks of squad training. Adding to 6 months. There are some more difficult rank and file assignments, lasting 12 months. Rank and file medics stay for 9 months.

NCO training after that initial 8 weeks is in two parts, 7 and 9 weeks. Those sent to reserve officer training swap the latter 9 for 14 at the reserve officer school. NCOs lead after that for 28 weeks and reserve officers 23.

Finnish conscription is very limited in its selectiveness. 25k conscripts serve yearly, which is roughly 70-77 % of male cohort. The numbers add up quickly: there's a massive trained reserve of 900k which eclipses most of European armies combined. Their usefulness is obviously somewhat debatable. Still all of them had 6-12 months of military training at some point. 230k have actual war time allocation and up to date kit. There's a similar 12 months of civil service or serve jail time "options" like in Norway. In 2009 2,5k picked civil service, 25 went to jail and 20 took a very niche option, which is to serve unarmed.

Answer to question "in your opinion, if Finland is attacked, should Finns take up arms in any situation, even if the end result seems uncertain?" has been very high for the whole of 2000s: 71–81% say yes. So the willingness is high, owning to mostly to geographical realities. The same thing which has ensured that there's never been serious intent on getting rid of conscription.

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#417

Post by michaelmrose »

coldtea wrote: post #402
michaelmrose wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that its just to throw people in prison for refusing involuntary servitude on the basis that that service is necessary for the existence of the state that the individuals rely on. Now what I wonder is why the state would be in a position to need to use threats to inspire its citizens to serve. Perhaps it doesn't want to pay sufficient money to acquire the individuals its needs. In effect it is saying that it…

> Now what I wonder is why the state would be in a position to need to use threats to inspire its citizens to serve. Because some citizens are selfish or unique snowflakes for whom service is beneath them, but they still like the other advantages the state provides them.

If they are selfish wouldn't they be inclined to take a fair offer for their time?

Re: Sweden brings back military conscription

#418

Post by michaelmrose »

hythloday wrote: post #406
michaelmrose wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every society that practiced slavery regarded your slave status as an immutable part of your being nor does slavery require trade if you are born a slave in a family and live in bondage you are a slave without having changed hands. To be a slave is to have your personal freedoms subordinated to another while people always enjoy a finite degree of autonomy which varies substantially from society to society and eve…

I don't think that you literally mean literally, but an obvious difference between slavery in the United States and conscription in the United States that you can avoid the latter by permanently renouncing your citizenship.

Can you renounce your citizenship AFTER they conscript you and leave?
Post reply on HN