The General Political Thread

[McPero]

This thread is a circle jerk for a select few with their engraved political opinions anyways, once a person has read too far into his own ideology without reading the opposition he'll be stuck listening to himself lecture for hours.

yawn, this is why political threads don't work.

You shouldn't really believe in any ideology

[Edwin]

This thread is a circle jerk for a select few with their engraved political opinions anyways, once a person has read too far into his own ideology without reading the opposition he'll be stuck listening to himself lecture for hours.

yawn, this is why political threads don't work.

I think it's more of a case that we've discussed just about everything possible in the realm of politics. Just think, we've had four politics threads and three of them reached several hundred pages. What more is there? Most of us are either burned out or simply don't care about the topics of discussion at the moment.

[Riddlez]

Then let's move into military policy? Much more interesting, much more material, less news coverage and, unlike Nortk Korean or US constitution, something I actually know something about.


To react on it immediately... conscription (in current Western Democracies) doesnt work and isn't of this time any more.

[Duuring]

Context-dependent. For the purpose of national defence against a numerically superior force, conscription greatly expands defensive capabilities and makes it easier to set up a capable resistance force after a succesful invasion. This increases the costs for an invader, and makes invasion less likely to happen at all.

However, for our greatly specialized and essentially small-scaled warfare, yeah, conscription serves little militairy purpose. The money is better spend in something else.

So countries like Lithuania, Finland and (to a lesser degree) Sweden? Yeah, conscription serves a purpose. The Netherlands or Canada? Not so much.

[McPero]

So countries like Lithuania, Finland and (to a lesser degree) Sweden? Yeah, conscription serves a purpose. The Netherlands or Canada? Not so much.

Why would Sweden need conscription? Strategically one of the least important countries, apart from steel no natural resources, nobody is going to invade them.

I think conscription is more of adulthood initiation not really useful for military purposes. But overall waste of money and against human rights.

[StevenChilton]

Context-dependent. For the purpose of national defence against a numerically superior force, conscription greatly expands defensive capabilities and makes it easier to set up a capable resistance force after a succesful invasion. This increases the costs for an invader, and makes invasion less likely to happen at all.

However, for our greatly specialized and essentially small-scaled warfare, yeah, conscription serves little militairy purpose. The money is better spend in something else.

So countries like Lithuania, Finland and (to a lesser degree) Sweden? Yeah, conscription serves a purpose. The Netherlands or Canada? Not so much.

That's the military angle and I agree with it, but the arguments for conscription are also to do with civil integration and skills training. European countries with massive inward migration and large numbers of NEETs could perhaps benefit.

[Toffee]

Mcpero you just said that there was no natural resources produced there and then gave a valuable resource.

I don’t agree with conscription since it violates citizen rights unless it’s in extraordinary circumstances.

[Duuring]

Context-dependent. For the purpose of national defence against a numerically superior force, conscription greatly expands defensive capabilities and makes it easier to set up a capable resistance force after a succesful invasion. This increases the costs for an invader, and makes invasion less likely to happen at all.

However, for our greatly specialized and essentially small-scaled warfare, yeah, conscription serves little militairy purpose. The money is better spend in something else.

So countries like Lithuania, Finland and (to a lesser degree) Sweden? Yeah, conscription serves a purpose. The Netherlands or Canada? Not so much.

That's the military angle and I agree with it, but the arguments for conscription are also to do with civil integration and skills training. European countries with massive inward migration and large numbers of NEETs could perhaps benefit.

Agreed, although the same argument why it doesn't really serve a purpose in the militairy works in the integrationquestion. Yes, it could improve integration, but the question is whether it improves it more then spending the same amount of money in a different way. I don't agree about skills training; the money would be much better spend in offering actual job-focussed education.

Conscription is not against human rights as long as it offers a reasonable alternative service-path.

Sweden has a huge territory and a relatively small populationm, and is not a NATO-member. Gotland especially is a valuable target. For national defence, a purely professional force might simply not be enough. It is not as in danger as Finland or Estonia, but certainly is in a riskier position then the Netherlands or France.

[StevenChilton]

Well, whatever they're currently spending it on is hardly working well in either category...

[Riddlez]

We already  have an invention for fighting a numerically superior force. It's called manoeuvre warfare and has been proven to work in a number of wars. It is much better to have a professional standing army in any war than to have a conscription army without any meaningful continued ability to develop skills and doctrine. Especially with today's technological side of warfare you need trained soldier with who it doesnt matter if their training lasts 3/4th of a year and then basically starts again the moment they join an operational unit instead of half a year of training in a conscription unit which would get hammered by superior professional forces anyway.

[Duuring]

We already  have an invention for fighting a numerically superior force. It's called manoeuvre warfare and has been proven to work in a number of wars.

One does not excluse the other. Lithuania has 8000 professional soldiers plus 4.000 reservists and has to protect a territory as large as Belgium and the Netherlands combined. It needs conscription to meet recruitment numbers to effectively do that. The choice is not between a fully professional army or a fully conscript army, that's a bit of a strawman. There are various models.

I don't doubt you are better up-to-date on technogical advances in warfare, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, the actual fighting is still mostly done by guys with rifles. Access to modern technology doesn't mean it's actually used. Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, all are basically fought the same way they would have been in the 80s, by both sides. Is Russia using T-14s in Syria, or Chechens armed with weapons from the 70s? I mean, Ukraine is currently in the middle of a war and their most modern technogical advances have been creating special apps for soldiers to use instead of easily decoded Facebook Messenger and using drones to drop grenades on Russians.

[Furrnox]

Hey, if you want to get depressed I have the right thing for you!

Spoiler

[close]

It's also split in parts if you'd not like to watch it all at once.

Spoiler

[close]

[Duuring]

Is that the video where they show the dozens of completely wrecked pick-ups some Afghan Police base has stored so they can collect gas money?

[Furrnox]

They do at one point, yes.

[Duuring]

Bless those Americans soldiers for their patience and effort. Felt so sorry for them.