StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Was listening to Parliament on the radio this morning. They were bringing up the potential for conscription should Australia go into Iraq. Not that it would make a great difference in that campaign, but the arguement was that our defense forces are stretched too thin and recruitment isn't covering it.

I bloody hope that this doesn't make it to the legislation phase and stays firmly theoretical.

Don't get me wrong, I support National Service, but not Conscription.

Conscription is a tool wherein governments can send poorly trained young men to the meat grinder.
Frankly I think it should be outlawed by the UN or something.

Currently conscription is a waste of money for any modern Army save Russia.

No Western government s going to allow for the term to be more then two years, and you simply can't train a man and get any use out of him in that time now. 3 years would be okay, and 1860's French style 18 year terms would work great, but neither will happen.

Hell Australia would likely do what a lot of Europe has done, one-year terms with the result that the conscripts are useful only for cleaning the toilets of the professionals.

Like I said, I support the idea of national service. Maybe something modelled on the old French idea. Sometime between the age of 17 and 24, every person must begin their 2 years in national service, be it military, police, local council worker, librarian, whatever, as long as it is a government paid job.

It seems like a good way to control unemployment and also to bolster the ranks of all these professions.

I would think that the primary need for Australia's defense force it to protect that huge coastline you guys got.

Illegal immigration, poaching of marine resources, piracy, etc.

Anyway, I dont believe in concsription either. Id rather have a smaller better trained force, than a large one of people that dont want to be there.

weemadando wrote:Was listening to Parliament on the radio this morning. They were bringing up the potential for conscription should Australia go into Iraq. Not that it would make a great difference in that campaign, but the arguement was that our defense forces are stretched too thin and recruitment isn't covering it.

I bloody hope that this doesn't make it to the legislation phase and stays firmly theoretical.

Don't get me wrong, I support National Service, but not Conscription.

And this is what happens when I leave the country for a few months.

Bloody John Howard.

Conscription is not as bad system as it sounds. For many smaller countries such as Sweden or Finland with a potentially hostile, much larger neighbour it is also the only solution. Professional army is also more expensive and with a population under 10 million it's extremely hard to get enough recruits to fill the needs. This does not apply to all branches of military, of course. The pilots and large parth of the navy personnel are professionals. Special forces are a mix of pros and contract soldiers.

The conscript system has worked well in all Nordic countries, even when it comes to foreign operations. It is possible to send a peacekeeper with a year long training to a peacekeeping and he/she will still do the job well. However, I could imagine a country like Germany using a professional military instead of conscription. They'll probably change it sometime in the future, just like France did a couple years ago. Then again those people doing their civil service instead of military are a huge help for the goverment...

"...Id rather have a smaller better trained force, than a large one of people that dont want to be there."

I do agree that a professional army would be better trained, however your last argument doesn't fit all countries using conscription.

I find any peacetime use of making people join the military morally abhorrent, but at the same time, I recognize that some states have legitimate military concerns, and as long as they don't treat the part-time conscripts too badly, I can live with it.