Conscription vs Professionalism

Professionalism or conscription? What type you support and why?

Professionalism, of course.

Welcome to the era of industrial mass production, mechanical and electronic automation and extensive civil rights.

As a results, bullets are cheap - our manpower is not.

Napísal International, 03.07.2015 at 16:56

Professionalism, of course.

Welcome to the era of industrial mass production, mechanical and electronic automation and extensive civil rights.

As a results, bullets are cheap - our manpower is not.

There is an interesting debate going on in Russian Federation about abolishing conscription and transform the army into professional one, like Russian Empire had, or keep Soviet-style conscription. Usual argument is that Imperial Russian Army was better and more efficient against invading enemy(French) than Soviet Red Army against its enemy (Germany), because Imperial Russia lost 200,000 population, USSR lost 30 million only 150 years later.

Vladimir Putin wants to transform the army into professional, while Generals want to preserve it like conscript. Putin reduced army from 2 million to 700,000 already, 150,000 of them are conscripts (which make 550,000 professionals). Generals complain about lack of manpower, while Putin argue that robotics and firepower makes up for low manpower in modern warfare.

But i must admit that Russian generals have a point about long term scenario: If you dont recruit, then you wont have manpower to mobilize during the war. For example lets take United States, they have professional army, which make American population not trained and introduced into weaponry, tactics and discipline during the war. US army in case of war can only mobilize ex-servicemen which count only 700,000 men (US army have 1.3 million active), together thats 2 million manpower. In Russian Federation, every able male performed military service, which make every male Russian citizen reservist, thus in case of war Russian Federation can mobilize 30 million men, because they all went to the army for a year or two (depend on the branch) and are trained to use weaponry and tactics they learned.

Another example is German Empire and Britain in WW1, Britain never conscripted while Germany did, and so they had stronger and more disciplined soldiers in WW1 while British mobilized troops never held a gun in their hands but were thrown into fires of war instantly.
South Korea(developed country) conscript their men for 2 years, they have 600,000 active and 9 million reserve(all able males). Japan have professional army of 200,000 and 50,000 reserve, which makes 250,000 in war, so if China invades, they wont have manpower to defend properly.

They reached compromize where Russian Federation will keep conscription, but halved 50%, and sign up contracts with volunteers. Conscripts serve 1 year in Russian Army, volunteers choose 2 years or up to 20(depends how much you want monthly wage).


this map just need 2 corrections, China should be blue and Russia mixed red/blue

More troops is always good for a 1st or 2nd world country, so conscription.

As for 3rd world, I am ethically forced to suggest to remove military. It is just useless, worthless, when you take into account that most of the invasion / defense will be won by the 1st world country. Best is just to do as Costa Rica and build a country of peace.

Even if a 3rd world country try to pressure another 3rd world country that doesn't have military service, the world will stand against it.

Napísal clovis1122, 04.07.2015 at 07:04

More troops is always good for a 1st or 2nd world country, so conscription.

As for 3rd world, I am ethically forced to suggest to remove military. It is just useless, worthless, when you take into account that most of the invasion / defense will be won by the 1st world country. Best is just to do as Costa Rica and build a country of peace.

Even if a 3rd world country try to pressure another 3rd world country that doesn't have military service, the world will stand against it.

I believe that Numbers always prevail over professionalism, it all comes down to their moral and motivation.
The world does not care if another country is invaded, is all about their interests, look at syria.

Napísal Tundy, 04.07.2015 at 11:26

The world does not care if another country is invaded, is all about their interests, look at syria.

Name a country without military service that got invaded while having this status.

EDIT: After that, say the reaction of the world toward it...

Napísal clovis1122, 04.07.2015 at 12:25

Napísal Tundy, 04.07.2015 at 11:26

The world does not care if another country is invaded, is all about their interests, look at syria.

Name a country without military service that got invaded while having this status.

EDIT: After that, say the reaction of the world toward it...

Is impossible to do so right now, because all of the countries with such status are irrelevant AND recently independent.
All of the countries listed were not independent until ww2 ended.

Napísal Tundy, 04.07.2015 at 12:50

All of the countries listed were not independent until ww2 ended.

As a Latin American I won't argue for another country, except for Costa Rica. And I do know Costa Rica was independent around 1821 like most of Latin American countries, a lot before WW2. Now, they abandon their military in 1948, according to wikipedia.

Surviving over the cold war with Nicaragua (strongest Latin American army during the end of the Cold War) without army, and not being invaded a single time is not because they were a new country, it was just because they didn't had army.

IMO Costa Rica best Latin american country, and other countries should follow the same example.

Napísal clovis1122, 04.07.2015 at 13:05

Napísal Tundy, 04.07.2015 at 12:50

All of the countries listed were not independent until ww2 ended.

As a Latin American I won't argue for another country, except for Costa Rica. And I do know Costa Rica was independent around 1821 like most of Latin American countries, a lot before WW2. Now, they abandon their military in 1948, according to wikipedia.

Surviving over the cold war with Nicaragua (strongest Latin American army during the end of the Cold War) without army, and not being invaded a single time is not because they were a new country, it was just because they didn't had army.

IMO Costa Rica best Latin American country, and other countries should follow the same example.

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

Central America was/is a puppet of USA, do you think they would allow some fucking idiot to mess with the panama canal? lol
Costa Rica is the perfect buffer state.

Small and peaceful countries live at the mercy of big countries.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 04.07.2015 at 05:01

Napísal International, 03.07.2015 at 16:56

Professionalism, of course.

Welcome to the era of industrial mass production, mechanical and electronic automation and extensive civil rights.

As a results, bullets are cheap - our manpower is not.

There is an interesting debate going on in Russian Federation about abolishing conscription and transform the army into professional one, like Russian Empire had, or keep Soviet-style conscription. Usual argument is that Imperial Russian Army was better and more efficient against invading enemy(French) than Soviet Red Army against its enemy (Germany), because Imperial Russia lost 200,000 population, USSR lost 30 million only 150 years later.

Vladimir Putin wants to transform the army into professional, while Generals want to preserve it like conscript. Putin reduced army from 2 million to 700,000 already, 150,000 of them are conscripts (which make 550,000 professionals). Generals complain about lack of manpower, while Putin argue that robotics and firepower makes up for low manpower in modern warfare.

But i must admit that Russian generals have a point about long term scenario: If you dont recruit, then you wont have manpower to mobilize during the war. For example lets take United States, they have professional army, which make American population not trained and introduced into weaponry, tactics and discipline during the war. US army in case of war can only mobilize ex-servicemen which count only 700,000 men (US army have 1.3 million active), together thats 2 million manpower. In Russian Federation, every able male performed military service, which make every male Russian citizen reservist, thus in case of war Russian Federation can mobilize 30 million men, because they all went to the army for a year or two (depend on the branch) and are trained to use weaponry and tactics they learned.

Another example is German Empire and Britain in WW1, Britain never conscripted while Germany did, and so they had stronger and more disciplined soldiers in WW1 while British mobilized troops never held a gun in their hands but were thrown into fires of war instantly.
South Korea(developed country) conscript their men for 2 years, they have 600,000 active and 9 million reserve(all able males). Japan have professional army of 200,000 and 50,000 reserve, which makes 250,000 in war, so if China invades, they wont have manpower to defend properly.

They reached compromize where Russian Federation will keep conscription, but halved 50%, and sign up contracts with volunteers. Conscripts serve 1 year in Russian Army, volunteers choose 2 years or up to 20(depends how much you want monthly wage).


this map just need 2 corrections, China should be blue and Russia mixed red/blue

You have to also remember Stalin purged many of his generals, either killing or imprisoning them. Germany also launched the largest invasion in history with support from multiple countries. All of those factor into why Russia lost so many people. But then again, Stalin sent a million troops against 200,000 fins and basically lost (Russia got some land but Finland got off even when they supported the nazis during WWII). Professionalism I think is more important but conscription can work for defense or if used for attacking (but in large numbers, ie. China's entry into Korea). But it also depends on the country's situation. Israel is surrounded by enemies so it makes since for them to have conscription. the US has an ocean between itself and enemies, so professionalism might be a better option.

All good arguments for more manpower, but the social and political costs can be horrendous.

South Korea has 9 million reservists, but I can guarantee that the government will start collapsing by the time it loses the first couple millions.

Democratic countries are a motly melting pot of contrasting opinions and belligerent arguments between politicians who only care about re-election that actually achieves very little. That is at the best of times, actually.

Now add 5% of the population coming home in body bags in an unwanted war plus a government grimly determined to win a war no matter the costs, and you have the perfect recipe for civil collapse or another martial law military dictatorship.

In short, sure, South Korea has 9 million reservists, but it will already have been essentially destroyed by the time the situation gets desperate enough to actually need nine million.

Napísal clovis1122, 04.07.2015 at 07:04

More troops is always good for a 1st or 2nd world country, so conscription.
As for 3rd world, I am ethically forced to suggest to remove military. It is just useless, worthless, when you take into account that most of the invasion / defense will
be won by the 1st world country. Best is just to do as Costa Rica and build a country of peace.
Even if a 3rd world country try to pressure another 3rd world country that doesn't have military service, the world will stand against it.

Interesting point, but i have another one: Large countries dont need conscription since they are big and have large population, so their volunteer army can outmatch some small state with low population which have smaller army even conscripted.
For example, China dont need conscription because they have 20 million volunteers for military service, they pick 500,000 and thats it. Korea in the other hand, is way smaller and they need conscription so they can mobilize if China invades.

But about your point, why stop there, lets destroy all weaponry, big and small countries, and then divert funds to healthcare and space program where we can travel, discover new resources and get richer.

Napísal Pheonixking929, 04.07.2015 at 14:43

You have to also remember Stalin purged many of his generals, either killing or imprisoning them. Germany also launched the largest invasion in history with support from multiple countries. All of those factor into why Russia lost so many people. But then again, Stalin sent a million troops against 200,000 fins and basically lost (Russia got some land but Finland got off even when they supported the nazis during WWII). Professionalism I think is more important but conscription can work for defense or if used for attacking (but in large numbers, ie. China's entry into Korea). But it also depends on the country's situation. Israel is surrounded by enemies so it makes since for them to have conscription. the US has an ocean between itself and enemies, so professionalism might be a better option.

Do you think United States can mobilize and use conscription in case Russia and China invade? Does US government have right to mobilize civilians who are not volunteers and never served in the army?

Napísal International, 04.07.2015 at 23:28

All good arguments for more manpower, but the social and political costs can be horrendous.
South Korea has 9 million reservists, but I can guarantee that the government will start collapsing by the time it loses the first couple millions.
Democratic countries are a motly melting pot of contrasting opinions and belligerent arguments between politicians who only care about re-election that actually achieves very little. That is at the best of times, actually.
Now add 5% of the population coming home in body bags in an unwanted war plus a government grimly determined to win a war no matter the costs, and you have the perfect recipe for civil collapse or another martial law military dictatorship.
In short, sure, South Korea has 9 million reservists, but it will already have been essentially destroyed by the time the situation gets desperate enough to actually need nine million.

I dont believe politics interfere in military and war, since there is only one goal in war: to win and survive. Plus Koreans doesnt have to mobilize all 9 million in first war they bump into, just conscription gives them large pool of ready and able manpower to pick in case of war on long terms. They can mobilize 500,000 someties, the other time that would be 2 million for example, or even 50,000, maybe they will need just medics and helping hand, for rear support.

Also, many government cease their job when war start so General Staff can take command of the country, so politicians dont lead the nation, generals do. And usually whole nation support war and doesnt care about casualties because it is about survival. If they surrender or avoid to fight, they might get occupied and genocided. It would be silly to blame your own government for invasion and because your countrymen are dying defending.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 05.07.2015 at 04:28

Interesting point, but i have another one: Large countries dont need conscription since they are big and have large population, so their volunteer army can outmatch some small state with low population which have smaller army even conscripted.
For example, China dont need conscription because they have 20 million volunteers for military service, they pick 500,000 and thats it. Korea in the other hand, is way smaller and they need conscription so they can mobilize if China invades.

Assuming with Korea you mean South Korea, I would rather suggest to remove military, but I understand they "don't want" to do this with North Korea there. IMO, U.S and Japan can recover SK quick in case of NK invasion, and attacking a country with no army is a great demoralization hit not only to NK army, but also to China.

If China invade, SK would have very few chances of winning, I'd rather remove military and make the 1st situation happen.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 05.07.2015 at 04:28

But about your point, why stop there, lets destroy all weaponry, big and small countries, and then divert funds to healthcare and space program where we can travel, discover new resources and get richer.

As the country become biggest and get more cultural problems, this comment becomes more idealist. No army in a big country is unlikely to happen, but I'd say Japan and South Africa would be the countries closer to it.

Professionalism is preferred but National Service should also be a policy. Best of both worlds.

Napísal Skanderbeg, 05.07.2015 at 04:28

Do you think United States can mobilize and use conscription in case Russia and China invade? Does US government have right to mobilize civilians who are not volunteers and never served in the army?

The US has a professional army that in my mind will be able to hold off offensives by a Russian/Chinese invasion due in part to the "home field" advantage. If America were to be invaded, conscription is (at least in my mind) a right of the government (we do have a draft). Personally, in the event of a war with Russia AND China, I do believe a draft would be called (or at least some sort of program for a home front defensive group). I think the US will be able to train a semi-professional army (trained conscripts) that will give any invading army a hard time (roughly 300 million people, 150 million adults, 75 million adult males so it would be a substantial amount depending on able bodied males and ability to conscript).

Here is Prussian style:



They created standing army of professional(payed) officers and non-commissioned officers((drill) sergeants) (payed) who just trained recruits/conscripts. Lets say 10% of Prussian active army was officer cadre, and lets say their size was 500,000, that mean 450,000 were conscripts and 50,000 were professional soldiers(officers) who trained them.

Napísal Pheonixking929, 05.07.2015 at 18:17

Napísal Skanderbeg, 05.07.2015 at 04:28

Do you think United States can mobilize and use conscription in case Russia and China invade? Does US government have right to mobilize civilians who are not volunteers and never served in the army?

The US has a professional army that in my mind will be able to hold off offensives by a Russian/Chinese invasion due in part to the "home field" advantage. If America were to be invaded, conscription is (at least in my mind) a right of the government (we do have a draft). Personally, in the event of a war with Russia AND China, I do believe a draft would be called (or at least some sort of program for a home front defensive group). I think the US will be able to train a semi-professional army (trained conscripts) that will give any invading army a hard time (roughly 300 million people, 150 million adults, 75 million adult males so it would be a substantial amount depending on able bodied males and ability to conscript).

Do you think US military in case of conscription due to invasion on American soil, can suffer from ethnic, religious or race incidents?

Napísal Skanderbeg, 08.07.2015 at 14:08

Do you think US military in case of conscription due to invasion on American soil, can suffer from ethnic, religious or race incidents?

From what I saw after 9/11, any attack on American soil (especially an invasion) causes the majority of people to forget their differences. It's simply not realistic to say there will not be any incidents, but Americans, like many countries, are going to fight together to defend this country. There are no large scale secessionist groups and while racism is a problem, it is not so huge a divide that people wouldn't stand together to still fight for this country.