SilentStrikerWould you accept the draft if your country decided to reinstate it?
qyronIn short: I’d refuse, oppose it and campaign against it.
I owe politians nothing. The rethoric about patriotism, duty and all the other arguments commonly used to carry forward pro-draft, pro-defense, pro-rearmament, etc, are hollow.
There are bad actors in this world but politians still confuse public office with unbridled authority and people allow for it like sheep.
Draft as been talked about in my country (Portugal) a few years back, by people that never served as military, from a “conservative” sector of society, using arguments gravitating about ingraining “values” about patriotism, discipline and sacrifice to the younger generations.
Translation: you are to be braiwashed, forced to obey, never question and die where and when ordered.
I risk most will defend their home and family at the risk of cost of their health and life if a bad actor arises. But that in no way leads to the logic for need of a standing army.
Peace is peace. Armed peace is a veiled threat.
I risk most will defend their home and family at the risk of cost of their health and life if a bad actor arises. But that in no way leads to the logic for need of a standing army.
You say “…if a bad actor arises.” But we already have those bad actors at our doorstep, they don’t need to arise. I don’t think we would be able to defend against Russia if we didn’t have standing armies. A quickly mounted militia is no match for a standing army, so I would say there is a pressing need and logic for a standing army.
Admittedly, Portugal is at the other end of Europe and not really threatened by Russia, but arguing against standing armies in general because it would be other nations fighting for you is a bad argument imo.
But I actually agree. Armed peace is a veiled threat. A threat against Russia (and other hostile nations) to leave the European Nations and democracy in peace.
Many people in the world will disagree with that view.
A standing army is a lumbersome beast. It requires supplies for both machines and soldiers, space, infrastructure.
A loosely organized resistance can severely hinder or even cripple such a force with assimetric warfare.
People fighting for a belief fight with resolution.
Many people in the world will disagree with that view.
I mean, yeah sure, but a lot of people in the world would also agree with me. Neither of those things make a point though.
A standing army is a lumbersome beast. It requires supplies for both machines and soldiers, space, infrastructure. A loosely organized resistance can severely hinder or even cripple such a force with assimetric warfare.
It may be more cost-effective, but definitely not human-life-effective. I guess it depends on what you value more. Money and and materials or human life? Because I can guarantee asymmetric warfare costs a lot of lives. I mean just ask the Vietnamese if they would rather have had an army capable of fighting the US. Or the Iraqi. Or ask the Ukrainians if they prefer their army fighting Russia or having to fight civilian asymmetric warfare. You don’t want to have a civilian fighting force against a foe that has invested in a modern military with Anti Air, tanks, missiles, drones, trained personnel.
I personally prefer paying the price of war in money and materials than in the lives of my fellow citizens.
People fighting for a belief fight with resolution.
I don’t disagree but are you implying that this is not true for a standing army?
Plus whoever organises these resistances will end up as an Organisation akin to an army anyway. So you just end up with what you didn’t want but only weaker and less able to defend against an attacker.
It can be risked, with a fair degree of confidence, considering what is transpiring from the ongoing wars that what is considered conventional warfare is changing at a tremendous speed.
Air superiority, conventional artilery, mobile armour, highly sophisticated and expensive weapons systems are being rendered useless, powerless or at least less than superior, by cheaper, often disposable solutions.
This entire combat landscape change, in my view, is the early warning of a deeper trend where human resources will be much more valuable than machinery and conventional armies are a liability, not an asset.
Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.
I agree that warfare is changing fast. But I don’t think the changes so far support your Idea of guerilla-warfare being better than having a standing army.
Staying with the example of Ukraine (which I believe is the best example of the type of war we would be having here in Europe), I don’t see how guerrilla warfare would be better than how they are fighting the war right now (With a standing army). But maybe you could showcase how that would be the case?
Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.
I also don’t quite understand how this would even work without a standing army. Who trains these covert operation groups? Because you can’t start training them when you are attacked, at that point it’s way too late. So you need an Organisation that trains them, in which case we just end up with a standing army again.
A standing army is mostly cannon fodder. The common soldier does not have skills or competences to make an individual difference in combat situation, regardless of how much training they had. Even less if that soldier was drafted, in contrast to a volunteer, which was the original premise that led the conversation here.
One thing is to maintain a small contingent of professional, trained, military personnel, to bolster civilian organizations in case of catastrophe, act as first line of defense in case of armed conflict, either from outside threat or inside, act in conflict areas as stabilizing presence, etc.
A completely different thing is to maintain an overwhelming force, technically on permanent standy-by, capable of presenting a threat towards another country.
A professional, organized, highly skilled, flexible, volunteer, force can churn out in a very short time window cannon fodder, from drafted personel, or train well prepared small units to be involved in assymetric warfare.
Returning to the Russia/Ukraine example: Russia is making use of their historical doctrine of flooding the battle field with bodies, after their original “blitzkrieg” idea failed. Ukraine is moving towards highly specialized units, capable of attacking and moving, to quite successfully, ruinning the offensive of the invader, after expending their regulat troops on the first wave.
I’m a little confused as to what your definition of a standing army is?
Because this:
Returning to the Russia/Ukraine example: Russia is making use of their historical doctrine of flooding the battle field with bodies, >after their original “blitzkrieg” idea failed. Ukraine is moving towards highly specialized units, capable of attacking and moving, to >quite successfully, ruinning the offensive of the invader, after expending their regulat troops on the first wave.
and this:
A professional, organized, highly skilled, flexible, volunteer, force can churn out in a very short time window cannon fodder, from >drafted personel, or train well prepared small units to be involved in assymetric warfare.
is a standing army. Highly specialized units have been part of standing armies for long time now. Those Ukrainian Units you are describing are part of a standing army. Mostly conscripted by the way. You don’t get these professional units without having a standing army.
This is the definition of a standing army as per wikipedia:
“A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts. It differs from army reserves, who are enrolled for the long term, but activated only during wars or natural disasters, and temporary armies, which are raised from the civilian population only during a war or threat of war, and disbanded once the war or threat is over. Standing armies tend to be better equipped, better trained, and better prepared for emergencies, defensive deterrence, and particularly, wars.”