Professional army

>professional army
>literally hiring mercenaries to protect your country
Conscription is the only legitimate form of defense. If your people need to hire their defenders they deserve to be conquered

Specialization > generalization

If people kill stuff as a career, they're better at killing stuff than people who do it once in their life and then quit.

You don't get institutional experience by firing everybody in an organization every time the war ends.

>bad guys with lots of military experience attack your city state.

>your citizens are brave but don't have the expertise or numbers to win.

> Mercenaries from Lakonia are ready to lend you a helping hand, but you reject them because user mocked you.

> your city state burns

Sad story

>city state
That's your problem

But specialization comes with its own issues. The military can very easily become a parasite on its host country, dragging it into ruinous wars with foreign nations or drawing the lion’s share of the annual national budget until society starts decaying from over-specialization, which produces massive social rifts between the trained killers with no other skills and the rest of society.

The ideal between the extremes would be citizen-soldiers, part timers who belong to part time militias which can rapidly militarize in times of crisis, but otherwise maintain a minimum impact on society and aren’t a burden on state finances.

this isnt how modern armies work, you cant just fast build tanks and planes+ all modern armies have motorized or mechanized infantry, which means you still need profesional soldiers to meintain them.

Volunteer armies already have issues with people who're only there because of the bennies/because thye couldn't hack it in the civilian world, conscription armies would just increase the shitbag ratio by a massive percentage.

Generalized specialization > specialization || generalization

“modern” militaries are full time military-industrial complexes which thrive on continuous, low intensity warfare and are a constant drain on their country’s finances. The full time professional military also lets the chief executive deploy them where ever it wants like without much input from elected officials or the general population.

They’re certainly more efficient, but come at a high maintenance cost and are a constant risk to their society

Modern militaries kill other militaries. If a country decides to go your route, they run the risk of ceasing to exist because of foreign invasion. I say that's worth the cost.

Mercenaries are useful for localized offensive actions where you don't give a fuck about their penchant for rape and pillage.

>Conscription is the only legitimate form of defense. If your people need to hire their defenders they deserve to be conquered

If a nation has to force its people to take up arms to defend it then that nation doesn't deserve its sovereignty.

Military-industrial complexes win wars.

When the life cycle of a modern weapons system is measured in decades, cutting the military in peacetime isn't a viable option.

What about countries with required military service when you become an adult? Then everyone becomes good at it.

You say that, but french conscripts really rolled most euro professionals for a good decade

Then why was our military so effective in WW2 when it was 2/3 conscripts?

Do you really think someone is going to invade a country that with the push of a button can glass any other country on earth?

>b-b-but my freedom
Nation>individual

here i will loan you this rifle now go kill the other goyim for me

Yes

>The ideal between the extremes would be citizen-soldiers, part timers who belong to part time militias which can rapidly militarize in times of crisis, but otherwise maintain a minimum impact on society and aren’t a burden on state finances.

The actual ideal would be a mixture of professionals for everything that does need long-term and special training and a part-timer militia for bulk infantry (which, fortunately, is still necessary in a real war). The latter also instrumental in keeping the former in check.

Precisely the other way round. Volunteers are always a mixture of motivated patriots and losers without options; if we assume the first group to be average in intelligence the average of the force will still be lower than that of society. Conscripts are a broad spectrum of society and will thus be at exactly society average. The problem would be their motivation, but given an intelligent draft system that doesn't waste their time or lives, but only trains them for the job to defend their country (see switzerland or finland) that is not a problem after all.

>If your nation doesn't enable free riders it doesn't deserve to exist
I bet you also think taxes should be voluntary.

a city state is the ideal form of civilization, people have a deeper personal connection to their state

Conscription is a form of slavery, far more degenerate than mercenaries.

but militaries that haven't gone to war in a generation show to be extremely incompetent regardless and need years till they sort out the stupid

narcissism and individualism is what is bringing down the west.

Welp

Society is a form of slavery

>the poorer and less democratic the country is the more people feel obligated to protect it
Interesting

More like those people are poorer, and give greater value to what they do have, whereas the wealthy need have no attachments except to their money which can replace anything else they might lose.

Yeah man, people in Sweden and Finland starve to death.

you mad butthurt turk rape baby?

>a constant drain on their country’s finances.
If you completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the military industrial complex.
Not to mention those production lines for things like building tanks and airplanes aren't something you can just shut down and restart using ISO manuals. Welding armor for tanks isn't something that has a peace time application, and so the only way to make sure you've got people who know how to do it is by keeping them employed, and training their replacements, so that in the event we ever seeded a shitload more tanks we wouldn't have this huge learning curve in manufacturing EVERY time a conflict breaks out.

I don't like how the question is phrased. I'd defend my country with my life, but I'm not about to put my skin on the line to further the corporate interests of some rich asshole.

>Conscription is anathema to a professional military
Dickhead

No it isn't. The clan village is the ideal form of civilization.

>If your people need to hire their defenders they deserve to be conquered
Logically speaking, if you believe that, shouldn't you believe the same thing about your people needing to force a subset of their society to be their defenders by law and state power? That's what conscription is.

honestly this map is a meme
millions of ukrainians are emigrating to avoid conscription in last years

>send mercenaries to enemy country to wreck shit up
>dont pay them
>they just rape and pillage enemy instead for FREE and dont care about petty stuff like war crimes

*Harvest season arrives*

JUST

Based Finland

God Bless you Finland

No, what wins wars are adaptable, dynamic heavy industrial areas which can be rapidly converted to war time production powered by a powerful financial sector which can weather the costs. Military industrial complex is necessary up to a point but beyond it they just waste money on colossal boondoggles like the osprey or Lorica Segmentata

This isn't 1941 though. You can't just convert a tractor factory to produce DU and Chobham-equiped Abramses or some aerospace firm that produces straight forward "low-tech" turbofan jets to suddenly switch to production of turbojet F-35s and organize the nightmarish sub-contractor net for the tens of thousands of specific parts in a jiffy, while the enemy is raining cruise missiles. The technology is too sophisticated so there needs to be a constant low-rate production as to develop and maintain the know-how and capacity.

This. Things like this aren't measured by asking 2 dozen syomonglers urbanites about their opinions.

>Professional Standing Armies
>Mercenaries
What did OP mean by this?

he's a dumb commie

>Dumb commie
>OP is using Jeffersonian ideas

Wat

And what are these ideas?

So what you're saying is that Jefferson is a commie?

Citizen Soldier =/= Conscription.

Literally this

Jefferson was completely against a standing army and felt that it was a financial drain on the States and a potential hazard to the nation's principles. Standing armies foster imperialism and war, while effectively rewarding mercenaries. Jefferson believed that the best soldier was the citizen soldier, raised to fight to defend the country in times of need then returning to their farms after.

OP is a dipshit who does not know the difference between a professional volunteer army and mercenaries.

>comparing some fancy suit of armor to high tech equipment that takes entire teams of people just to maintain while it's sitting in a base
You are a moron. If we slashed our budget and "turned off" the whole manufacturing and maintenance process our military would be a bloated, decrepit mess within a decade. Just look at Germany. They went total pacifist after ww2 and did not even bother with a self defense force like Japan and now they are trying to militarize again and their army is a complete joke. They have no veteran soldiers or commanders, they don't even have enough weapons to arm their troops and their army is a fraction of any other first world nation's.

Face it: if you step away from the military industrial complex at this point you're just shooting yourself in the foot and consigning your nation to geopolitical irrelevance.

>geopolotical irrevelance
>germany

Countries with conscription develop defence systems also.

Countries with conscription also almost always have between 20 and 50% of their force made up of professional troops and have a constant force structure. People itt think you can just raise a hi-tech competent force from scratch with muh citizen soldiers.