Conscription is literally slavery. It is a pseudo-nationalist ruse by The Man

Conscription is literally slavery. It is a pseudo-nationalist ruse by The Man.

A country where people wouldn't fight out of their own will is a failed country.

This failed country is doing pretty well in consideration of the fact that its failed

>A country where people wouldn't fight out of their own will is a failed country.
You do understand that soldiers need to be trained, right? If a larger country invades you, you don't have the time to train all those volunteers before you're overwhelmed.

I know you're American and this is inconceivable to you, as a purely defensive military is as well these days, but have some common sense.

Modern warfare requires training for a long time for a solder to become something more than cannon fodder, without universal conscription you have no ready-to-deploy pool of prepared specialists in case of war.

Yes, because monies is synonymous with success, nothing else matters for a people other than monies, war is good if it generates monies even if it costs a few lives, this is because satisfaction and strict adherence to humanist ideals is anything but necessary, even slavery is good because it makes monies.

If you consider how the wealth of the US grew due to both world wars, then yes, it was a stupendous thing. Should happen every year.

What did money ever do to you?

>A country where people wouldn't fight out of their own will is a failed country.
Kwans tried it during civil war it ended up in such huge mess that they've scrapped the concept of citizen militias all together afterwards.

Nothing and that's his problem. Probably couldn't even afford a decent hooker

>wealth of US grew because of wars

WHEN WILL THIS MEME DIE???

WAR DOES NOT GROW ECONOMIES.

Read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Maybe you learn some basics.

>Libertardian

Please find the nearest time machine and go back to 1880 and die

K Thnx

>feeding everyone
Going past 4 billion was a mistake

>homeless everyone
Gutting psychiatric care was a mistake

>debt
People that can't manage or keep from debt were a mistake

Oh, look, it's retarded.

>A country where people wouldn't fight out of their own will is a failed country.
It's all fun and games until somebody decides not to adhere your arbitrary rules and drafts their citizens, winning a war as a result.

Nothing. Money isn't being criticized. Learn to read.

Regardless, that isn't the point. Learn to read.

And at what point have I said a country shouldn't have a military force?

>And at what point have I said a country shouldn't have a military force?
I'll explain it to you on an example because you seem to not realise it.

British army at the beginning of WW1 was full-on volunteer. Germans didn't want to play the chivalrous game they wanted to play and instead of it had 3 years draft during peacetime and mobilised properly. Great Britain had to institute draft and mobilise like a 20th century country either way.

You wonderful ideals about "lol nation that can't defend itself with volunteers alone doesn't deserve to be independent" breaks when one of the nations says fuck it and institutes draft. You can have the best soldiers around(in fact, BEF was assumed to be elite fighting force back in the days) but if the enemy is outnumbering you 8 to 1 you're not going to stop them. As such a nation that may have "not deserve" independence can BTFO a nation that "deserves" independence based of volunteers alone because the smaller country, didn't care about some autist's philosophy.

Also an important thing lies in your wording.

You're talking about "failed" countries. That's fine. Country that is unable to protect its citizens is failed, also according to your OP.

Now, how about country that protects its citizens because they have drafted army as opposed to the country that can't protect them, because of volunteer army. For the former you can pick modern Israel, for the latter I don't know really, because surprisingly in the real world ideological policies are rare.

Afghanistan and Iraq wars had plenty of volunteers, regardless of the merits of those. If your country isn't a shameful shit for its own citizens then you'll have enough volunteers to form a large specialized reserve, with an active segment depending on your GDP too, of course.

>autist's philosophy
Oh, it's just a dumb memester I'm replying to, it makes sense now.

>Afghanistan and Iraq wars had plenty of volunteers
Guerilla warfare starts AFTER your country fail, and those volunteers were exactly that - partisans. Unless you count Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in which case they were more of a mercenary force than volunteers, because the volunteers(largely opium farmers) were actually losing the asymmetrical conflict before large dump of Saudi/US money came to help them.

>If your country isn't a shameful shit for its own citizens then you'll have enough volunteers to form a large specialized reserve, with an active segment depending on your GDP too, of course.
Yeah... of course. The specialised reserve doesn't come from nowhere. They need training, and even then after few years all it gives them is that when you'll mobilise that reserve, they'll know the basics which will reduce the time you need to retrain them.
The rotation in volunteer army isn't guaranteed - after all you can be volunteer for a decade as well as for 2 years and sadly, armies have their limits. They won't grow over some size in peacetime because it would be too expensive, and as you lack the means to predict how many of them will volunteer right now, you can't prepare proper budget to get them all.
Which means that your rotation cycle will be screwed from the ground-up, as opposed to countries that maintain professional army that later forms NCO and CO corps and draftees that cycle through every 6-months, 9-months, year, two yeas, three years... and you know almost perfectly how many of them there are, which allows you to prepare for accommodating, training and equipping them.

And as I've said, it's all great until the other side says fuck it to your autism. Their citizens may not like them as much, but they will win, because of war-readiness, faster mobilisation and having more experience with handling bigger armies.

Swiss model btw. is compromised nowadays.

Only women should be conscripted.

Fuck you then. Before conscription I was just some thin faggy NEET. Friends I got during conscription motivated me to do well so now I'm athletic and social. It's fixing a lot of people wether they like it or not and this is a democratic country after all.

I mean the US forces, there were plenty of volunteers, no for draft. China has conscription but there's no need for draft, because there's plenty of volunteers.

>autism
I rest my case. You are a dumb memester who can't read. You can fuck off now.

>I mean the US forces, there were plenty of volunteers, no for draft.
They weren't fighting for their own country here though.
>China has conscription but there's no need for draft, because there's plenty of volunteers.
China also has 20 million males that won't ever have a woman, guess where are they getting those volunteers from?

Should country without large population growth place itself on a loosing side just because "lol, draft is bad"? Well ask them not me, but I guess they won't agree with you.

And since when does not having a draft automatically puts you on the losing side? You're a dipshit.

Since 17th century, give or take 100 years. It became enormously visible by 19th century though.

Also your chinese example is retarded because to maintain the same standing army(2,5 millions) a country like Germany would have to convince 3% of their population to enlist. Americans would have to convince 0,8%.

Do you know how much it is for Chinese? 0,15%. 5 times less than in case of the US and 20 times less than in case of Germany.

I can see it working, yeah, totally.

Yes, it wouldn't work, just look at those poor blue countries that hasn't enforced conscription in years. Countries like Australia, Belgium, Netherlands and New Zealand have crumbled after abolishing conscription.

Show me one war that was lost BECAUSE of no conscription and maybe I won't think you're 100% retarded.

>Show me one war that was lost BECAUSE of no conscription and maybe I won't think you're 100% retarded.
I can't because literally every country that entered literally every serious war(shooting niggers in Africa is by no means serious war) instantly introduced conscription.
The ones that prepared for war did the same in advance. Like conscription

Your map is btw. very interesting example because Western Europe dropped off conscription as a cost-saving measure, everybody knew it will result in reserve base going to hell, nobody argued otherwise. Usually the safety concerns were addressed with "The US Army will intervene if something goes wrong" and this is the defence strategy of entire European part of NATO. I wonder if somebody asked Americans if they're willing to do it because I doubt it.

I saw the debate first hand.

At the same time, in countries that are under constant threat and don't have abundant manpower - see Israel - nobody ever seriously raised a question of abolishing draft. Same happened to France before late 40's. I wonder why, it must be because those people were all stupid and didn't knew that volunteer army>drafted army. Or maybe not?

Once you get to live a modern, standard/casual life - have a family, job, certain ways to entertain yourself - things like military conscription may seem like an inconvenience, perhaps even a life ending one. But people had it worse throughout the course of history, they didn't possess any of the things I've mentioned and everything was much more miserable for them. Seemingly, a huge progress has been made since then. Slavery has also been frowned upon once, thus conscription may become history one day as well and for now, we have to face it as a certain phase.

My point is that you should remain thankful for the things you have and embrace the still inevitable (not everywhere) faith, that is getting drafted to the military.

War does not decide the justice of any question. It only determines which party is the most ferocious and savage. Virtuous but weak nations, have been reduced to the greatest subjection, without even a charge of offence or injury.