Conscription vs the Draft

[b.scheller]

Which one do you think works better in a situation as an all out war? Or even a war in any case...is a compulsory service for all able bodies (conscription incase you didnt know) better or worse the compulsory service for a few (lottery sense of draft)?

I'll provide my arguments later...just have to finish an assignment first...

[aartamen]

As past conflicts indicate a professional army is simply insufficient for a truly all-out FAIR war. It's not a question of what's better but of what's possible. If you are talking about the US, then you have to remember that our population is very small and relatively opulent. Which means that a large volunteer army will not be easy to assemble. While our adversaries just might put a 10 mil men strong army together. On the other hand we will simply nuke them if it comes to the nation's survival. Gotta get that missile shield up ASAP first though.

[James]

If you are talking about the US, then you have to remember that our population is very small and relatively opulent.

:| Our population is number 3 in the world... Only China and India have more...

[aartamen]

That's excellent. And China plus India have close to 8-10 times our population. Meanwhile places like Bangladesh, that you can't even find on a map easily have 130mln population.

[b.scheller]

If you are talking about the US, then you have to remember that our population is very small and relatively opulent.

:| Our population is number 3 in the world... Only China and India have more...

:cantbeli:

wow...

[11F5S]

If you are talking about the US, then you have to remember that our population is very small and relatively opulent. .

Very small! The US is the 3rd most populated country in the world, behind China and India.

Opulent !! Perhaps you meant corpulent :P

[FDF_Hemppis]

IMO conscript army is sufficient for defensive warfare. Professional armies can be trained better, but I'd say the price/quality ratio is far better with conscript armies :P

Also, conscripts usually have a civilian profession of which the army possibly can take some advantage...

[Kekkonen]

IMO conscript army is sufficient for defensive warfare. Professional armies can be trained better, but I'd say the price/quality ratio is far better with conscript armies :P

Agree, if the country you represent would switch to professional army, they could
afford to have like, 2 brigades? Well it would look "cool" during peacetime, with them
having all the Gucci gear. But in case of war I doubt those two Gucci-equipped
brigades would be more effective than 21 brigades (although to be cut down slightly)
of conscripts, that have received combat training but (boo-hoo) have 40 year old BDU´s.

Besides there is a lot of positive aspects with conscript armies. The military becomes
"the peoples army" in a whole other way, and conscripts gets to meet people they
would definitively never hang out with otherwise (rich brats being in the same squad
as poor ghettokids), it really unite the people of that nation, but that´s just my opinion

:)

[Mark Sman]

My opinion is that a country that can't defend itself with volunteers deserves to go down the crapper.

Either the citizens are willing to defend it, or they are willing to lose.

[NicNZ]

Heh, cant believe he suggested the US has a small population. New Zealand has 4 million people and Australia has 18 million people; even the UK 'only' has 80 million people.

Anyway, I agree with the suggestion that conscription is better for a defensive war (witness the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War) than extra-territorial wars (witness the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan). Professional armies are better motivated to participate in wars outside of their homeland. That said, if theres a strong enough reason to fight, nonprof soldiers will fight, such as the ANZACs flocking to Europe, Asia, and North Africa in the Second World War.

[Kekkonen]

Besides it is not like it can be "only professional" armies or "only conscript" armies,
all to my knowledge a all-conscript army doesn´t even exist. Officers are of course
professionals, as in many cases also lower-ranking people if the unit is high-priority,
or the units are all professional despite that countries armed forces consist of mostly
reserve conscript units. This is of course necessary for some specialists, such as pilots.

And soldiers that are sent abroad for UN-peacekeeping for example are often reserve
conscripts, but during their visit abroad become professional soldiers.

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/la02_v441_mp2.jpg
A Swedish MP in Liberia, note her rank, four stripes (Överfurir),
or something like a Master Sergeant. Probably served as a conscript
in a military police unit during her basic training, after the service
ended up in the reserves, applied for international duty and got accepted,
and is now per definition a professional soldier.

[catalyst]

it should only be conscription for all or volunteer service. No way does a draft work in a democratic society in a wartime situation.

That is wat happened to Australia in the vietnam war and the aftermath of the dratf is still being felt by those who were dafted and sometimes by those who werent.

In a non-democratic society.....do whatever you need to do! they dont get to say wat they want really neway so who cares!

[digrar]

That is what happened to Australia in the vietnam war and the aftermath of the dratf is still being felt by those who were dafted and sometimes by those who werent.

I think our Vietnam Vetrans are affected more by what they saw, did and were subjected to by the dogs upon their return, then the actual act of being conscripted. True, if they had not of been conscripted then they wouldn't have been there to be affected, but the volunteers still would have gone and would still be experiencing the problems that they face today.
I know National Servicmen who did not serve in Vietnam who feel they are better off for the experience of conscription. I also know of others who are irritated by the two year interuption to their lives.

I think that motivation also has a lot to do with the performance of conscripts. The type of war, their training (both individual in sub unit), how their units were formed, how they were treated, their potential length of service ect.

[Thor]

One major problem with professional armies like US Army is that they simply can't recruit the best soldiers. You'll get a lot of poor guys looking for a chance to make a buck or a free college education and you'll get a lot of guys that's pretty below average in everything. The best and brightest of their generation will get other training and other professions.

In Sweden there are many examples of guys volounteering but not being accepted and also many guys not wanting to serve that's being called up for duty anyway (and once there really liking it). The way the system works is that all 17 year old young men are drafted to a two day testing period. There they undergo physical and mental testing. In the end you're called up to a recruiter that looks on your performance (including grades from school, sports etc). You then have the opportunity to say what type of service you would prefer or if you just hate the military. He then can send you to any type of unit (except all-volountary units) and you can end up as anything from a cook to an intelligence officer.

Edit: nowadays only about 20-25 percent of all 18 year old men are selected for military service.

To serve in a unit abroad you have to first complete your soldier training (7,5-18 months). If you have a good service record you can apply to serve in a unit abroad. And then you're per definition a professional soldier..


http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/la02_v441_mp2.jpg
A Swedish MP in Liberia, note her rank, four stripes (Överfurir),
or something like a Master Sergeant. Probably served as a conscript
in a military police unit during her basic training, after the service
ended up in the reserves, applied for international duty and got accepted,
and is now per definition a professional soldier.

No, this particular woman is a female police officer that probably has undergone the regular MP basic training.

[Kekkonen]

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/la02_v441_mp2.jpg
A Swedish MP in Liberia, note her rank, four stripes (Överfurir),
or something like a Master Sergeant. Probably served as a conscript
in a military police unit during her basic training, after the service
ended up in the reserves, applied for international duty and got accepted,
and is now per definition a professional soldier.

No, this particular woman is a female police officer that probably has undergone
the regular MP basic training.
Yeah she is a police officer in the civilian life, doesn´t change the fact that she did
(not perhaps as you say) some time in 2nd squadron/Livgardet. I must admit that my
knowledge of how ranks are given to soldiers in Sweden is a little rusty, but I have a
very hard time imaging that she went from a civilian police officer without military
training to Överfurir over night, there is kind of "some" steps from nobody to Överfurir.
Simply, what you are saying "no" to is beyond my understanding, care to simplify?

it should only be conscription for all or volunteer service.
No way does a draft work in a democratic society in a wartime situation.
Ahem, isn´t that "no way it won´t work" a little too dramatic? Of course it won´t work
very well if you take some 18 year old conscript from Archangelsk and send him to Chechnya
or take some kid from a ghetto in Detroit and send him to some djungle on the other side
of the globe. But when it comes to defending your dear democratic motherland you
love from a evil (boo-hoo) invader, conscript armies has in a historical context seemed
to be able to get enough lead in the air to get the job done. And when it comes to
many smaller countries on this globe, why should they even want to have the capacity
to do anything more than defend themselves?

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4111BunkkerinTyhjennyst%E42.jpg
Motivated conscripts in white from a democratic country
vs. unmotivated conscripts in khaki from a dictatorship.

[aartamen]

Heh, cant believe he suggested the US has a small population. New Zealand has 4 million people and Australia has 18 million people; even the UK 'only' has 80 million people.



And the population of Luxembourg is less than a half a million. How is that relevant to the fact that the US might get into a war with a country 5 times it's size in potential recruits? And that's just one country.

[11F5S]

How would China transport your suggested 10 million man Army to invade the USA

[Haiw]

By imaginative boat...

BTW what does the 'amount of possible recruits' really have to do with anything? Just look at WW2...

[OldRecon]

My opinion is that a country that can't defend itself with volunteers deserves to go down the crapper.

Either the citizens are willing to defend it, or they are willing to lose.
IDF is a conscript force (though better motivated than most such) and thus by methods of recruitment a "voluntary one". Thus that mean Israel deserves to go down the drain? :lol:

As for voluntary recruitment, problem is when losses in a pro army becomes massive, as with the British "Old contemptibles", then the reserve of trained volunteers is too small and you get Some slaughters with insufficiently trained duration only volunteers instead.
In todays military environment, with relatively sophisticated equipment, you would need at least a year to train a new volunteer person without previous military experience to an acceptable standard.
A conscript reservist on the other hand cold do with only 3-5 months "reconditioning".
If I'm correct the draft was introduced in the States in good time before Pearl Harbour during WW-2. Without those drafts the US army assets in North Africa during 1942-43 would have been pretty meagre and suffered even worse at the hands of the Afrika corps.

Also for small nations voluntary pro armies are not an option, because you wouldn't recruit enough manpower that way.
The most pronounced advantage of a pro soldier over a conscript one is moreover not neccessarily one of better equipent and range of relevant skills. Rather it's a question on the physical condition of the men.
Physical condition between a conscript recruit undergoing military training and a pro soldier may not be that different. But when the conscript recruit becomes a conscript reservist things divert.
A pro soldier in a reasonably good pro army get very strong incentives with regards to keeping himself physicaly fit from the environment he lives and work in. A conscript reservist on the other hand is more or less left to his own devices with regards to physical fitness.

As for draft vs. conscription. Conscription is much better, because draft by nature is a hapazard and unfair method. A system that involves all, is better than a system that only affects some.

[Mark Sman]

IDF is a conscript force (though better motivated than most such) and thus by methods of recruitment a "voluntary one". Thus that mean Israel deserves to go down the drain?

Its my opinion. You might note the use of the word can't.

If a country can't find volunteers to defend it, its not worth defending. Basically if a nation's people won't defend it of their own free will, what are the consrcipts defending.

I don't want anyone on the line who hasn't volunteered.

When we had the draft in the US, the ranks were full of dopeheads, slackers and people who would have volunteered. When we transitioned to an all volunteer force, it had a dramatic positive effect.

[11F5S]

[quote]
When we had the draft in the US, the ranks were full of dopeheads, slackers and people who would have volunteered. When we transitioned to an all volunteer force, it had a dramatic positive effect.

Were you part of that military? If not who's your expert source?

[aartamen]

By imaginative boat...

BTW what does the 'amount of possible recruits' really have to do with anything? Just look at WW2...

China would transport its army by dirigibles, of course.

Looking at WWII. Hmm, huge excess of human capital eventually overwhelmed much better prepared fighing force with better technology. Thanks for a good example.

[11F5S]

Looking at WWII. Hmm, huge excess of human capital eventually overwhelmed much better prepared fighing force with better technology. Thanks for a good example.


German's better technology... Do you classify the M1 Garand as old technology compared to the German 98K's?

How about the Norden Bomb Sight?

[aartamen]

I meant primarily Eastern front. Also I would say that Garand did not make or break the Western front. But massive numbers of rather inferior tanks and fresh conscripts did.

[Haiw]

I meant primarily Eastern front. Also I would say that Garand did not make or break the Western front. But massive numbers of rather inferior tanks and fresh conscripts did.
... or the fact that the Allies owned the skies...or the fact that the Germans were fighting a war against multiple stronger opponents in different places... Have you ever considered that the only thing that kept the Germans from conquering the USSR was some blunders by Hitler?

[Roger Rabbit]

Anyone read this book http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0297646931.02._PE30_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Talks about the US conscripts in Europe WW2. Paints them in quite a bad light in my opinion. A poorly trained mass winning by luck, numbers and German misfortunes. I was quite surprised by what i read in the book and still have my doubts about its authenticity but it makes for different reading.

[Haiw]

BTW a better comparison is how Germany attacked the Netherlands, Belgium and France in may 1940...

[OldRecon]

IDF is a conscript force (though better motivated than most such) and thus by methods of recruitment a "voluntary one". Thus that mean Israel deserves to go down the drain?

Its my opinion. You might note the use of the word can't.

If a country can't find volunteers to defend it, its not worth defending. Basically if a nation's people won't defend it of their own free will, what are the consrcipts defending.

I don't want anyone on the line who hasn't volunteered.

When we had the draft in the US, the ranks were full of dopeheads, slackers and people who would have volunteered. When we transitioned to an all volunteer force, it had a dramatic positive effect.

The Brits would have had a much harder time during the Malayan emergency in the 1950 if they hadn't been able to rely on conscript soldiers filling the ranks. The most successfull Brit infantry battalion in that conflict besides the Gurkhas, a battalion from the Suffolks regiment, was mostly manned by conscripts.
The battalion from DRW taking part in the last major action involving British troops during the Korean war at "the Hook" was largerly manned by conscripts.
Some of the RAR battalions taking part in the Vietnam war were mainly staffed with conscript/draftees, yet seem to have done quite well.

If I've not wrong, before conscription was abolished in Brittain during late 50's early 60's even some of the junior officers were conscripted.

[aartamen]

... or the fact that the Allies owned the skies...or the fact that the Germans were fighting a war against multiple stronger opponents in different places... Have you ever considered that the only thing that kept the Germans from conquering the USSR was some blunders by Hitler?

Allies owned the skies due to their massive superiority of manpower. Making those bombers and fighters (they did not exaclt own anything until they got the escorts going) was very labor, not to mention capital expensive. Germany was fighing against a numerically superior alliance. It does not matter how many opponents comprised it.

There was one, arguable, blunder that could be directly attributed to the Soviets' first success. That was shifting of the impetus of the German drive toward south from Moscow. The Soviets made so many blunders that Germans just must have won, using that logic.

[ronin2172]

... or the fact that the Allies owned the skies...or the fact that the Germans were fighting a war against multiple stronger opponents in different places... Have you ever considered that the only thing that kept the Germans from conquering the USSR was some blunders by Hitler?

Allies owned the skies due to their massive superiority of manpower. Making those bombers and fighters (they did not exaclt own anything until they got the escorts going) was very labor, not to mention capital expensive. Germany was fighing against a numerically superior alliance. It does not matter how many opponents comprised it.

There was one, arguable, blunder that could be directly attributed to the Soviets' first success. That was shifting of the impetus of the German drive toward south from Moscow. The Soviets made so many blunders that Germans just must have won, using that logic.
hell if hitler had waited and finished off the brits (what rommel could have done with another panzer division), u would have had a german army in the mideast with plenty of oil, it is likely turkey would have come in on the german side, creating three possible avenues of attack (not to mention japan taking an interest in matters), and unleash your now free wolfpacks to interdict russian shipping and the the situation would have been dire.

[aartamen]

Hitler could not wait. If not objectively then subjectively. The actual invasion of the USSR started even later than it was planned. He was maniacally anti-communist and grossly underestimated his opposition, including the environmental factors.

And pray tell what Russian shipping would the German U-boats intercept? I am just curious.

[ronin2172]

true most of the convoys that supplied russia were from the british...but the russians wouldn't be able to count on them in this scenario correct? now with no overland supply route (the one the allies used through iran) russia would only have one possible way to get outside supplies...by ship...the baltic would be out, for obvous reasons...so they would have to use what few ships they had...easy prey for the wolfpacks