Mandatory military service

[Bob McDob]

Only smaller nations unable to support a large standing army should use conscription. A populous country like the United States has absolutely no reason to reinstitute the draft, seeing as even if only one percent of the populace were mobilized, that's still 3 million. (Japan, Russia, and much of Europe, with their aging population, might present a problem).

Personally, if I were from Singapore obligated to spend a few years in the military military, I don't think I'd mind much, since they don't actually do much fighting. I don't dislike the military; I just don't like being shot at.

[Colonel Olrik]

Personally, if I were from Singapore obligated to spend a few years in the military military, I don't think I'd mind much, since they don't actually do much fighting. I don't dislike the military; I just don't like being shot at.

Two years of your productive life taken away (meaning that you could be earning real money) doesn't matter? Add that to the inerent cleverness of making people go to the military before College, with no possibility to go after. That means you'll go to college without study habits and having forgotten much of highschool. I imagine that they do it because college graduates would have to be conscripted as officers, much more expensive to maintain.

At least, that's how it is here in Portugal. They let people go to college before the draft, and then they really don't wish engineers and others know-it-all in the military, since we can't be treated like recruits. That results in most graduates (about 90%, me included) being immediatly put on reserve. People who don't go to college are usually drafted.

I think it's an acceptable scheme, since the guys who fail to go to college are usually in sore need of spending some time in a military organization.

[Alyeska]

Drafting or conscripting a military depends on the size of the nation and the situation they are in. For medium to large size countries with a technological military, a professional volunteer military is the best way to go about things. It is cheaper to maintain with volunteers who entered service by their own choice. Morale is high as well as experience and effectiveness. Conscripted and drafted armies tend to have lower morale and effectiveness even if the people didn't mind being drafted in.

For smaller countries with reasonable military threats, drafting is a way to ensure saftey of the nation. It is more acceptable in these situations. Drafting is also acceptable and even a neccesity for countries that are facing dire situations. This includes the US and its part in WW2. It needed large numbers of troops to handle important situations that it couldn't raise through recruiting. This required drafting. Those who were to ill fit for frontline combat or were dead set against it filled important rear echelon positions.

[Xisiqomelir]

That's how government works, get used to it (you don't think people pay taxes because they want to, right?).

That's why we endeavour to keep as small a government as possible.

[Stuart Mackey]

Only smaller nations unable to support a large standing army should use conscription. snip.

Hell no..not in this day and age. Small nations just dont have enough money to afford any decent kit for conscript armies.

[Stuart Mackey]

That's how government works, get used to it (you don't think people pay taxes because they want to, right?).

That's why we endeavour to keep as small a government as possible.

Small or big, it the services it provides that count.

[j1j2j3]

We draft all able bodied males at the age of 18 or graduation from highschool. Of course you can always postphone if it you want or if you go to college. There are also other ways of avoiding actual service such as working for an arms manufacturer or other defence related jobs if you are a college graduate.

I went for standard infantry service because I was a weakling after graduating from highschool and thought maybe the military would help me in that regard.

I don't think that our conscripts(over 80% of available manpower) are incompetent. Though probably the constant threat of war is the reason. 6 weeks of boot camp is enough to learn how to shoot the right way, and thats probably all you need for simple infantry(a lot more needed than other specialized jobs)

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

I don't think that our conscripts(over 80% of available manpower) are incompetent. Though probably the constant threat of war is the reason. 6 weeks of boot camp is enough to learn how to shoot the right way, and thats probably all you need for simple infantry(a lot more needed than other specialized jobs)

SIX WEEKS?!?! Jesus, basic in NZ is 12 weeks then there is trade training for another 12, and then you are still not concidered to be fully trained.

[Enforcer Talen]

its 6 wks for usa airforce, iirc.

[Edi]

Why the shock, Stuart? Not every nation does things the same way. We've a conscript military with a core of professional commissioned officers and enlisted senior NCOs, while the NCOs below staff sergeant are conscripts also. Service time is 6, 9 or 12 months depending on branch and specialty, except for NCOs who serve 12 months regardless of branch. Boot camp is five to six weeks during which they teach you the basics of infantry combat and the rest of the service time is spent on learning the particulars of your specialty (in my case urban combat). You can learn a decent amount of stuff in that period and it makes for a large reserve that can be called up instantly. Granted, the quality of training obviously isn't quite the same as in a professional military, and we aren't quite as well equipped, but we're not a pushover either. Besides, sometimes conscription really is the only viable way to maintain a military. Take a look at Finland's position on the map and its population base, then factor in what a professional army of adequate size costs and how far it would go in a real conflict situation, and there really aren't all that many conclusions you can come to. Not every small nation has New Zealand's advantage of being located on an island far away from everyone but their much larger ally, Australia.

We've discussed conscription pretty extensively in the Mess, and it does have its merits.

Of course, conscript armies work mainly in a defense context, sending one out to pursue war abroad is not generally a good idea.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

We've discussed conscription pretty extensively in the Mess, and it does have its merits.

Of course, conscript armies work mainly in a defense context, sending one out to pursue war abroad is not generally a good idea.

Edi

Of course a lot depends on geography..we have found that to get a good soldier the more time you spend on doing the basics and in continuation training, the better you are in combat. That was a lesson taught to us by the Germans in 1941..they were good teachers.

I dont have a problem with conscription in a case like Finlands or S Korea, but I dont get why the basic training is so short ,you are much more effective with longer training and a longer service.

[Oberleutnant]

I'd like to add Edi's excellent post one thing:

No "western" conscript military sends its men to operations abroad against their own free will. Everyone is a volunteer and has awlays undergone specialized peacekeeping training.

Countries like Sweden and Finland have a long history of peacekeeping operations across the world and the both countries base their defence on conscription. Based on their good peacekeepimg reputation I think it's safe to say that in low-risk operations like the KFOR, for example, people with conscript training can be just as good as professional soldiers. It should be noted, however, that peacekeepers are definetely "above the average" soldiers.

I wouldn't want to send a conscript force to an offensive operation outside its national boundaries, but for special situations conscript armies usually have specialized units. We, for example, have a semi-professional special forces unit whose members have finished a (voluntary) year long special training period in addition their very rigorous military service in airborne school. This leaves them with two years of demanding military service, which should be adequate for a special forces unit.


If you ask me whether we should start using a professional military instead of conscript force my answer is "yes". Call me an optimist, but I don't think we have to be afraid of Russia anymore, not in the same way as when USSR was around. A professional military strenghtened with a home guard organisation similar to Sweden's Hemvärnet would be the best way. First we would need to increase our military spending a bit(which would be required in any case since we have EU's third smallest military spending), since a professional military would be more expensive to maintain. Our Air Force and Navy are largely professional forces already, so they wouldn't be in need of any major structural changes. The army, on the other hand, would be completely different.

[Oberleutnant]

Of course a lot depends on geography..we have found that to get a good soldier the more time you spend on doing the basics and in continuation training, the better you are in combat. That was a lesson taught to us by the Germans in 1941..they were good teachers.

Although I hate to use Second World War as an example to modern situations, we had Soviets as teachers when our ill-equipped conscript army faced the Red Army. Without a conscript army, what would've happened to us? Of course that was back then when everyone grew on the countryside and knew how to handle himself in the wilderness, unlike city people like me.

I dont have a problem with conscription in a case like Finlands or S Korea, but I dont get why the basic training is so short , you are much more effective with longer training and a longer service.

In the words of ABBA: Money, money, money. . .

They are actually planning to lenghten the shortest service period (six months) here. They introduced it in mid-90's when the country was struck with economic depression to cut costs.

By the way, what do you exactly mean by "basic training"?

In USA (and Finland too), it means a few weeks long period when every recruit, regardless of their branch or place of service, is taught the basic things every soldier should know.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

SIX WEEKS?!?! Jesus, basic in NZ is 12 weeks then there is trade training for another 12, and then you are still not concidered to be fully trained.

It takes 1 month for a conscript soldier in Taiwan for basic, 8 weeks for officers.

And after retirement it takes less than 1 week for them to remember how to use the rifle.

[Stuart Mackey]

Of course a lot depends on geography..we have found that to get a good soldier the more time you spend on doing the basics and in continuation training, the better you are in combat. That was a lesson taught to us by the Germans in 1941..they were good teachers.

Although I hate to use Second World War as an example to modern situations, we had Soviets as teachers when our ill-equipped conscript army faced the Red Army. Without a conscript army, what would've happened to us? Of course that was back then when everyone grew on the countryside and knew how to handle himself in the wilderness, unlike city people like me.

Of course the Soviet army at the time was..well.. crap..lots of kit and more political training than something that might keep them alive.

I dont have a problem with conscription in a case like Finlands or S Korea, but I dont get why the basic training is so short , you are much more effective with longer training and a longer service.

In the words of ABBA: Money, money, money. . .

They are actually planning to lenghten the shortest service period (six months) here. They introduced it in mid-90's when the country was struck with economic depression to cut costs.

By the way, what do you exactly mean by "basic training"?

In USA (and Finland too), it means a few weeks long period when every recruit, regardless of their branch or place of service, is taught the basic things every soldier should know.

Must be funny, in a rich mans world.....
Basic is as it sounds. The basic skills a soldier needs to be a soldier. For us it is 12 weeks. The better you are at it the better you will be able to perform in trade training.

[Edi]

The basic skills a soldier needs to be a soldier. For us it is 12 weeks. The better you are at it the better you will be able to perform in trade training.

You can't just compare basic training as is, you need to compare the overall training and how it's taken as a whole to get any meaningful results for militaries as different as the Finnish/Swedish and New Zealand militaries. The training structure is substantially different, and the aims are also somewhat different, what with one being a professional military and the other focusing on producing a large number of decent soldiers that can be called up in a hurry. Obviously the professional military will aim for a lesser number of much more highly trained soldiers who will stay on for much longer, so they have to make sure their people have the basics pounded into them so thoroughly they'll remember them even when Alzheimer's robs them of everything else.

For me, the five weeks of basic (usually six weeks in the Finnish military, that unit was at the time a specific exception to the rule for certain reasons that no longer apply) was quite enough to let me learn how things should be done, but if we had been drilled in them for twice as long, obviously it would have become more automatic. I didn't find learning the specialties any more demanding because we hadn't gone through something enough in basic, and I learned rather well. I've been in the military and am proud of what I learned there, but I'm not entertaining any delusions about being the greatest soldier in the world. Just take this board for example, compared to those who were professional soldiers, such as Rob Wilson, Knife, Perinquus, CmdrWilkens, Coyote and others, I'm a rank amateur. Most of them know far more about my specialty than I do, even when their own specialties were different.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

The basic skills a soldier needs to be a soldier. For us it is 12 weeks. The better you are at it the better you will be able to perform in trade training.

You can't just compare basic training as is, you need to compare the overall training and how it's taken as a whole to get any meaningful results for militaries as different as the Finnish/Swedish and New Zealand militaries. The training structure is substantially different, and the aims are also somewhat different, what with one being a professional military and the other focusing on producing a large number of decent soldiers that can be called up in a hurry. Obviously the professional military will aim for a lesser number of much more highly trained soldiers who will stay on for much longer, so they have to make sure their people have the basics pounded into them so thoroughly they'll remember them even when Alzheimer's robs them of everything else.

Well, naturally, a lot depends on ones next door neighbor, yours was the catalist for your armys's structure. Ulitimatly, if what you have suits what you want, then so be it. When we had conscription after the war, our basic and continuation training were of longer duration {what we have now as it happens} as this was something we felt to be nessary for another world war.
We would have had the large pool of trained reservists, but ours would have had that skill to a greater degree than our expected enemy. This is why I dont get the short training time..aside from money
If you have conscripts, make yours better than the other guys.

For me, the five weeks of basic (usually six weeks in the Finnish military, that unit was at the time a specific exception to the rule for certain reasons that no longer apply) was quite enough to let me learn how things should be done, but if we had been drilled in them for twice as long, obviously it would have become more automatic. I didn't find learning the specialties any more demanding because we hadn't gone through something enough in basic, and I learned rather well. I've been in the military and am proud of what I learned there, but I'm not entertaining any delusions about being the greatest soldier in the world. Just take this board for example, compared to those who were professional soldiers, such as Rob Wilson, Knife, Perinquus, CmdrWilkens, Coyote and others, I'm a rank amateur. Most of them know far more about my specialty than I do, even when their own specialties were different.

Edi

Which sums up why our time with conscription was longer, when we had it,and why our proffetional force has greater training period. Of course this is not to bellitle your time with the colours, it just strikes me as strange that training time should be so short when a longer period makes you that much better and more versatile, and still retaining the benifits of the system you have.

[Edi]

Well, naturally, a lot depends on ones next door neighbor, yours was the catalist for your armys's structure. Ulitimatly, if what you have suits what you want, then so be it. When we had conscription after the war, our basic and continuation training were of longer duration {what we have now as it happens} as this was something we felt to be nessary for another world war.

So far the powers that be here have not seen fit to call for lengthened service time, and I trust they know what they're doing. Most of the time anyway, and when these issues come up, it's the generals I listen to, not the politicians. It'd be nice to see an independent assessment of how our military has turned out after WW2 and what its standing now is compared to others, but right now I'm too lazy to go looking for one.

We would have had the large pool of trained reservists, but ours would have had that skill to a greater degree than our expected enemy. This is why I dont get the short training time..aside from money
If you have conscripts, make yours better than the other guys.

I'd say that quality-wise, this is not a problem now, when you take a look at who we prepared to defend against.

Which sums up why our time with conscription was longer, when we had it,and why our proffetional force has greater training period.

Finland's service times are remarkably short compared to any conscript military, that's a fact. And any professional military can be expected to have a longer training period than an average conscript military.

Of course this is not to bellitle your time with the colours, it just strikes me as strange that training time should be so short when a longer period makes you that much better and more versatile, and still retaining the benifits of the system you have.

I'm not taking it as such, nor am I regarding this as a pissing contest on whose military is superior and whose methods better. They're different, and both have somewhat different pros and cons.
The longer training time costs a lot more money for a very marginal improvement in performance unless you substantially increase the overall service time, say, from the 6/9/12 month period to double that, which is not feasible for us. It was Knife or Coyote who commented someplace that it typically takes about a year before a unit "settles", so that everyone learns how to mesh and work together properly as a team, which is when the real training starts in a certain sense, as it were, and when that minimum requirement is the upper limit of service time here, there's little you can do to fix things in the way you are talking about. It requires more time, which is simply not available. The whole point of our system is to have the ability to summon an army at the snap of fingers, and should it happen, the first thing that happens is that al those units hie off to where they're supposed to go and immediately start additional training to beef up their skills.

Too, longer service time automatically means increasing the size of the military, because you need a lot more officers and units to train everyone because the training cycle slows down quite a bit.

There's also the added benefit of not keeping people tied up in the military for such a long period of time, which results in a longer period of time as a productive citizen in the workplace, because the military service doesn't slow studies down too badly.

If we wanted to change the system, it'd call for a rather large structural reform, and would not be politically feasible in any case.

Edi

[Thunderfire]

SIX WEEKS?!?! Jesus, basic in NZ is 12 weeks then there is trade training for another 12, and then you are still not concidered to be fully trained.

It was up to 6 months during the cold war in germany. It is 5(6?) weeks at
the moment AFAIK. The social system of germany depends on a large number
of young men who don't want to serve in the germany military. They have to
do some social service instead.

[Sir Sirius]

Boot camp is five to six weeks during which they teach you the basics of infantry combat and the rest of the service time is spent on learning the particulars of your specialty (in my case urban combat).

Actualy Basic training (Peruskoulutuskausi) is 8 weeks. IIRC it changed sometime in the late '90s.

Linky for Edi (it's in Finnish).

[Oberleutnant]

Actualy Basic training (Peruskoulutuskausi) is 8 weeks. IIRC it changed sometime in the late '90s.

Linky for Edi (it's in Finnish).

I think we were told that it changed in 1998 at the same time when the 6-9-12 system was taken into use.

[Knife]

You have to take a look at the objectives of boot camp, you are not supposed to be a fully trained killer right out of boot. Rather you are supposed to be a basicly trained private. The real training comes when you get to your unit.

Learning the SOP's of your unit and how it operates and get used to how the command structure of your NCO's and Officers do things. Boot is just to make sure you can shoot straight and march in formation, which it accomplishes rather quite well. The real training is in your unit where it makes you apart of that team.

[Edi]

Looks like I was going on old info regarding how long basic lasts, but then, I served in 1996-97, before the changes. Thanks for correcting me, Sirius.

Edi

[CaptainChewbacca]

Hey Xisiqomelir! I'm at UC Davis as well.

What field are you going to be starting in? Come on by the geophysics building sometime if you want some mind-numbingly boring classes. I'll lecture you into a coma

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

We would have had the large pool of trained reservists, but ours would have had that skill to a greater degree than our expected enemy. This is why I dont get the short training time..aside from money
If you have conscripts, make yours better than the other guys.

I'd say that quality-wise, this is not a problem now, when you take a look at who we prepared to defend against.

I cannot argue against that

Which sums up why our time with conscription was longer, when we had it,and why our proffetional force has greater training period.

Finland's service times are remarkably short compared to any conscript military, that's a fact. And any professional military can be expected to have a longer training period than an average conscript military.

Indeed.

Of course this is not to bellitle your time with the colours, it just strikes me as strange that training time should be so short when a longer period makes you that much better and more versatile, and still retaining the benifits of the system you have.

snip
If we wanted to change the system, it'd call for a rather large structural reform, and would not be politically feasible in any case.

Edi

Horses for courses I guess.