Anything mandatory generally is ridiculous and counterproductive. By forcing people to do community service won't necessarily make them better citizens either. E.g. in South Korea, a lot of people got a trauma from it because (extreme) bullying is very present there. There's a good documentary about it.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Ukraine shows that in time of war conscription is necessary.

But indeed in peaceful and powerful countries it's usually requested by conservative for the worst reasons possible, and I think it mostly feeds fascism. Community service is mostly the same. It's forced labour which is akin to slavery. Conservative like those things because they want to teach obedience and respect, but they are idiots.

Still, conscription is necessary in some conditions, and I wouldn't oppose it on principle. In France it was stopped because it was expensive and no war was in sight. Time changed and we still have atomic bombs, so in this case I guess it's quite useless.

But then it asks the question of who the army is defending. With conservative, racists and other fascist friends making most of the police and the army I feel like it's becoming dangerous. Maybe the army should be more representative of all people. But how can you do it without forcing people? And how do you prevent the army from being a corporation with its own interests and views otherwise?

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You are confusing concepts. Conscription does not mean bullying needs to be thing. Also ultimately, wars are about numbers and the amount of soldiers(or potential solders) one has, can affect the outcome and actively prevent war.

One of the main reasons Napoleon conquered most of Europe was because he used conscription and had an army of many millions fighting against a few thousand "volunteer" professional armies of other countries.

South Korea absolutely needs conscription. Maybe you are lucky to live in a country that doesnt face a legitimate direct invasion threat. But many, most people arent that lucky.

[–] LemmyHead@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not confusing things, you're just taking that argument out of context.

You're also giving an outdated historic example that doesn't make sense in the modern world where WMD are everywhere. Those numbers don't mean anything in case those weapons play a role. Aside from that, there's also plenty of historic examples where a smaller army won over (much) bigger one. So there's more factors than just numbers. Location, Intel, weather, firepower, strategy, updated tech are for example other factors that play a crucial role in achieving victory. You can also have a huge number of soldiers and a very incompetent leadership, like Soviet Union showed in the beginning of WWII, which drives number of deaths drastically up. You could said higher numbers also means more disposable men.

Whether SK needs it or not is debatable. You can still encourage people to join the army or contribute to the country's defense in other ways rather than taking away their freedom and treating them like a puppet and brainwashing them about the importance of it. All in all, a person should have full control over his own choices in life. With a globalized world (and more and more cosmopolitans), the choice to disconnect yourself from a country and move to another one and start a new life is also easier as ever. Something that also wasn't as easy during Napoleonic time.

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

You’re also giving an outdated historic example that doesn’t make sense in the modern world where WMD are everywhere. Those numbers don’t mean anything in case those weapons play a role.

Most countries, including Germany, dont have WMDs or even want to have WMDs. Also WMDs are super expensive to acquire and maintain. And then you just need to keep making more and more.

And you have no escalation capability, you either nuke or you dont. So do you use a nuke if someone grabs 100sqm of your land? Especially since they can retaliate with their own nukes? Would you risk getting your entire country nuked for 100sqm?

Or what if 1000 green men just walk into your governmental buildings and occupy them. And they have guns. Do you nuke them? Do you send the police?

Aside from that, there’s also plenty of historic examples where a smaller army won over (much) bigger one.

And for every one of those examples, there are 100000 examples where the numerically superior army won. One of the main reasons that those early ukrainian breakthroughs were possible was because Russia didnt have enough soldiers. Once Russia conscripted more soldiers, they managed to stabilize the situation and build defenses.

One of the reasons Ukraine hasnt won is because instead of being given thousands of tanks and airplanes, they are given a couple dozen.

All in all, a person should have full control over his own choices in life.

So should a person also have the choice of not paying taxes? How about wearing a seatbelt while driving a car? Or wearing clothes when outside. Or wearing a mask.

Protecting your state is one of the most fundamental things you need to adopt, if you have any interest in living in it. And giving some basic education on how to use and maintain a rifle or do some basic guard duty is useful.

With a globalized world (and more and more cosmopolitans), the choice to disconnect yourself from a country and move to another one and start a new life is also easier as ever.

So your argument is "just leave lol"? Even if we ignore reality(people have houses, jobs, friends, environments, societies that they love and no money to move), what will happen if that strongman comes after to where you run? You keep running? Till you run out of space and neohitler has conquered the entire planet?

The main reason that Putin invaded Ukraine was because he thought your attitude was prevalent in the West. Conscription and helping Ukraine are 2 big signals that show to Putin that he was wrong.