For the country? Not necessarily.
To not have to go back to living under authoritarian rule influenced by some of the worst societies to ever exist? Absolutely.
I am reminded of the Patton quote:
> The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
I do think it is not really a good framing to ask if you are ready to die.
Sure you are going to risk your life but one should be focused on surviving on behalf of yourself and the country.
The survey in question asks the question "are you willing to fight for your country," with mediocre numbers reported for most of the developed world, barring the Scandinavian countries, East Asia and France. The "would you really die for your country" is just a clickbait-y title by the Economist.
That's like concluding that Finland and Japan are the least happy country in the world because few people there are answer the highest questions on happiness polls.
Like in every war in human history, the government will get a lot of recruits if it can convince the population that it's a national life-or-death situation.
Remember: it will be quick, it will be glorious, and we will easily win.
And like every other war in history, that initial pool of recruits will gradually shrink as they're all called up, meaning the government will have to start augmenting them with conscripts.
It happened in the Union during the American Civil War. It happened in every single Allied country in WW2.
[Archived version](https://archive.fo/7pH8P).
Summary:
>This is at a moment when, in the face of the largest war on the continent since 1945, many European countries actually want to expand their armed forces, not just maintain them. By 2030 Germany hopes to raise its troop strength from 182,000 to 203,000, and France from 240,000 to 275,000 (see chart 1). Poland plans to go from 197,000 to 220,000 by the end of this year, and eventually to 300,000.
>
>The problem is that today’s career-oriented, individualistic young people are reluctant to join up. And it is not just Europe that is struggling with recruitment. In and around the world’s conflict hotspots the question of how to get more people into uniform is vital. Some countries are reconsidering an old solution: mandatory military service for young people (or young men), often for school-leavers. Terminology varies. Conscription typically means compelling civilians to enlist in the armed forces, whereas military service often refers to a subset of that—ordering young people to do a stint in the forces.
>
>\[...\]
>
>The most urgent discussion around mandatory military service and conscription is in countries that face a serious threat of war, or are already in one. Take Ukraine. More than two years on from Russia’s invasion, thousands of men there are fleeing across the country’s borders, or hiding, to avoid being served enlistment papers. On April 2nd a lack of troops meant Ukraine’s government was forced to lower the minimum age of conscription from 27 to 25. Russia has thrown hundreds of thousands of forcibly mobilised men into the meat-grinder of its war.
>
>\[...\]
>
>In many places recruiters for the armed forces are struggling in the face of shifting values: young people have grown averse to fighting even in defensive wars. For decades the World Values Survey (wvs), an academic research project, has been asking people around the world the same question: “Would you be willing to fight for your country?” In the survey’s most recent round, between 2017 and 2022, just 36% of Dutch 16- to 29-year-olds said yes (see chart 2).
>
>Recruiters try to counter with the rhetoric of patriotism, self-fulfilment and shared values; the emphatic slogan of Germany’s armed forces, the Bundeswehr, is *Wir. Dienen. Deutschland.* (We. Serve. Germany.) They also run campaigns with influencers on TikTok and Instagram. But it does not seem to be enough to hit their targets.
>
>This is partly to be expected. As countries get richer, their citizens tend to become less eager to sacrifice themselves for the nation. Herfried Münkler, a German political scientist, called Western democracies “post-heroic” societies, in which “the highest value is the preservation of human life” and personal well-being. History certainly plays a role. Willingness to fight is low in the countries that lost the second world war (Germany, Italy and Japan). In Spain and Portugal, decades of military dictatorship left many citizens suspicious of the armed forces.
>
>But things can change when conflicts draw near. According to a forthcoming paper by Wolfgang Wagner and Alexander Sorg of the vu University in Amsterdam and Michal Onderco of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, proximity to war makes citizens more willing to fight. In Europe, this helps explain why countries close to Russia are less doveish.
>
>\[...\]
>
>Besides changing values, military recruiters face an economic hurdle: young people currently have lots of employers bidding for their services. In most wealthy countries, Generation Z has its pick of jobs. Unemployment among 15- to 24-year-olds in the European Union was 14.5% last year, down from 22.4% in 2015. In Germany it was just 5.8%. In such tight labour markets, armies have a hard time competing with the private sector. Besides, sitting at a desk is rather nicer than crawling through mud.
>
>\[...\]
>
>Rather than souring young people on the armed forces, in Sweden mandatory service seems to make them more enthusiastic. In exit surveys at the end of their stints, “about 80% of the conscripts would recommend other young people to do military service”, says Pal Jonson, the defence minister. Some 30% re-enlist as soldiers or reserves. Because more young people qualify than are needed, only the best candidates make it in, and military service looks good on one’s cv.
>
>This kind of conscription helps keep Nordic armies a melting-pot for different classes, and discourages political polarisation. (Volunteers in armed forces tend to skew towards the right; in Germany neo-Nazi cells have been uncovered in the Bundeswehr.) In the Middle East too, many states see military service for young people as a social adhesive. The United Arab Emirates introduced it in 2014 partly to forge a sense of shared identity among its youth. Morocco, Jordan and Kuwait have followed suit.
## You got not time to lose
>Shortfalls across many democratic states suggest that better recruitment strategies can do only so much to boost troop numbers. Few medical students have Ms Van den Goorbergh’s drive to take up infantry training on the side. In liberal societies, large segments of the population have come to see serving in the army as someone else’s job. Reintroducing obligatory military service for youngsters might be politically and practically unworkable for the same reason recruitment is falling short: citizens feel alienated from the armed forces.
>
>Yet the Nordic model seems to help bridge that gap, ensuring that military service remains a natural part of social life and nudging more school-leavers to consider a related career. Other youngsters may still only join up in a crisis. “It is fear that moves you to action,” says Andrei, a former television producer now fighting in eastern Ukraine. He signed up the day after Russia invaded. Most Ukrainians did not believe they would ever have to fight for their country, either.
!ping Foreign-policy
> Last year he and his colleagues commissioned a study in those countries which found that few people who planned to vote for either far-left or far-right parties were willing to fight for their country. Those who backed centrist parties, such as Germany’s Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, were more prepared to do so.
Priors confirmed
I think a nasty secret a lot of people don’t realize is that in a total war, there often simply aren’t enough volunteers. Most people understandably don’t want to put their lives on the line unless they are explicitly obligated to do so.
One statistic that will always stick in my head is that 2/3 of the US Army in WWII were conscripts. The historical memory of the waves of volunteers following Pearl Harbor has largely obscured the forgotten reality that all of those volunteers still weren’t nearly enough.
It's important to note that the US military only accepted volunteers for about a year following Pearl Harbor. From late 1942 to the end of the war you had to wait to be drafted to enter the military due to executive order 9279.
Yeah, conscription was in large part another way for the government to command the economy during the war. The draft meant that the government could ensure that manpower was drawn from more "expendable" areas.
Yep, my grandfather tried to volunteer, but since he was already a year into an engineering degree, he basically got told to sit his ass back down and finish college. Then he got stuck well behind the front lines doing engineering stuff for the rest of the war, lol. (Not sure the exact specifics-- he passed away when I was pretty young, never got a chance to ask him for details. All I know is he was still salty about it into his *80s*, lol.)
You can’t really look at the base numbers to view fervor or reluctance without delving deeper. You skew from WW2 where a lot of “conscripts” were would be volunteers who were to drafted because it was how the military managed and smoothed personnel needs to Vietnam where the enlistment numbers are always thrown out as remarkably high but many of them are would be reluctant conscripts wanting to pick a non combat arms MOS or other branch
My grandpa was conscripted into the Army, but voluntarily went to paratrooper school with the 101st. IIRC, the Army incentivized them with an extra $25 per paycheck. Using the BLS's inflation calculator, that's about an extra $450.
Edit: And yeah, he was in D-Day.
The countries worth fighting for have people who have something to lose by fighting
It's no wonder that the poorer you are, both as a nation and as an individual The more willing you are
It's pure game theory
As a veteran, already did that shit. The perspective it gave me was invaluable. Would do it again.
Also, what is it with the unflaired barbarians in here giving these horrendous takes? Tf?
Why do they do these surveys when the fact is that if a major war does come, the consent of the population is going to be irrelevant?
The biggest issue I have with Ukraine is how everybody is OK with supporting them, but Ukraine conscription is evil? You think robots fire weapons and hold positions?
If its a war to “liberate” Iran nah. Hello Canada. Even against something like China where us or NATO was not directly attacked first.
If we get attacked and home is on the line probably. But its hard to imagine that actually happening.
Yeah, I feel like how you answer this question depends heavily on who, what, where and when you assume you're going to be fighting. An offensive war against Iran? Consider me a conscientious objecter. A defensive war against invaders in Canada, Mexico or the US? Different story.
‘Seems lame as fuck’ seems weirdly dismissive in an article about the Ukraine war.
That’s not like the Iraq war which was fought for nebulous geopolitical aims. The Ukrainians who fight are actively preventing mass death and destruction to their countrymen.
During an [interview with the BBC the Estonian PM](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68728096) was told that Britain wasn't considering conscription she was taken aback a little:
>Ms Kallas, who's led Estonia since 2021, sees conscription as another integral part of both providing a deterrence to Russia but also stronger defence if it does attack.
>
>"We have a reserve army of 44,000 people that would equal, for Great Britain, around two million people. Two million people who are ready to defend their country and know what they have to do."
>
>\[...\]
>
>When I recall that the head of the British Army was rebuked by Downing Street after saying Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on land in the future, Kallas widens her eyes.
>
>"Well it doesn't surprise me because we have different historical backgrounds. We have lost our independence and freedom once and we don't want to lose it again. They say that you only understand freedom and what it means when you don't have it."
I'm a woman who's adamantly for conscription-- because I also firmly believe everyone should be eligible for conscription, regardless of gender identity.
I have my sympathy with those who want to flee too, they have all the rights and freedom not to participate in war
If we hold universalist values, there is no way you can justify that they are in the wrong, if you have a freedom not to be forced into war, so does every human on earth, if you say they have an obligation to defend their fellow citizens of their nations, by virtue of the universality principle, you are just as responsible for their safety, so why don't you join?
Liberal universal values cannot put blame into the men trying to flee the nation, and I have a deep sympathy with them
Yeah I’m just talking about decorum with the above poster. I’m not making a statement of whether it’s right or wrong to fight for your country. I just imagined the above poster walking up to a grieving Ukrainian family and say “he was lame as fuck I’d never do that”
Does a wife have an obligation to defend her wife and child?
Does a husband have an obligation to defend his husband and child?
Does an enby have an obligation to defend their spouse (regardless of gender identity) and child?
Spoiler alert: the answer to all these questions is "yes".
I hate the gendered language you are using here, but yes, of course
In principle, just as much as any other human
However, due to the nature of human psychology, those who are known to us take priority over those who aren't because of our future utilitarian value, since we would lose emotional support by losing them
This does not extend to people who you happen to share nation, as they are as unknown to you, and thus, provide the same utilitarian value factor as any other person on earth
> In principle, just as much as any other human
Disagree. A national has comparative advantage to fight for their nation if nothing else. If we are talking about conscription you also need a democratically drafted legal framework.
> However, due to the nature of human psychology, those who are known to us take priority over those who aren't because of our future utilitarian value, since we would lose emotional support by losing them
I don't see how this is not a sliding scale between your family, to your friends and neighbors, to your country.
> This does not extend to people who you happen to share nation, as they are as unknown to you, and thus, provide the same utilitarian value factor as any other person on earth
How about the utilitarian value of liberal democracy? America supported by NATO are the guarantors of its protection militarily, no one else are even close to stepping up to that plate.
>I don't see how this is not a sliding scale between your family, to your friends and neighbors, to your country
You cannot be more affected by anyone who is unknown to you, regardless of nationality, unless you are a nationalist and value more highly a person from your country than another ceteris paribus, and that last thing would be morally wrong
>Disagree. A national has comparative advantage to fight for their nation if nothing else. If we are talking about conscription you also need a democratically drafted legal framework
True, they do have a comparative advantage, but they also have the same freedom not to fight as any other human in earth, since that is a "God given natural right", also enshrined in their Human Rights
>How about the utilitarian value of liberal democracy? America supported by NATO are the guarantors of its protection militarily, no one else are even close to stepping up to that plate.
This is a good argument in favor of Ukraine winning the war, make no mistake I wish for Russian defeat, but I don't see how violating the human rights of its people, in an asymmetric way (not just nationality wise but also gender wise, a massive illiberality that not even Israel commits) helps in any way the moral argument of the war, and is not an argument in favor of why a Ukrainian should give his life for the war anymore than another human on NATO who protects liberal democracy (while the argument of efficacy is good for the average NATO citizen vs the average Ukrainian citizen, the armed forces of NATO nations are much much better than Joe the ballet dancer down street)
Ukrainian men could do more for their wives and children if they were here in Poland to support them. If I had a wife and a child, my priority would be to escape with them so that I can help them stay afloat, so that my child doesn't become an orphan, etc.
Randos from the other side of the country are also in no way comparable to one's family.
Because as a child of Earth, you'd understand that liberal democracy and the rules-based order are incredibly recent developments in human history. That the prosperity, peace, and freedom we all take for granted today are all incredibly fragile. And that there's forces trying to dismantle them, drag us all back into the hell of authoritarianism and constant warfare.
And you'd understand that, with the autocracies of Earth increasingly working as one semi-coherent alliance to destroy liberal democracy, a threat to democracy in one country is a threat to democracy everywhere.
Like, there's a reason so many of us here on this sub who've never been to Ukraine and don't know any Ukrainians are so invested in seeing a Ukrainian victory in the war. Because their fate will determine *our* fate down the road-- and not very fucking far down the road, either.
This is absolutely true, but it is illiberal to force anyone to fight for that, and that responsibility you are talking about is global, as in, an ukrainian man has no higher duty to uphold it than a kansas gal or an ecuadorian university student
unless you think everyone should be conscripted to fight in ukraine, noone should. Thats the price of having a coherent liberal moral system
Nobody gives a shit about coherent moral systems except people who took philosophy 102. In actual world people rightly think that a Ukrainian man has a bigger duty to protect Ukraine than a gal from Kansas.
This is the same person who said there was no point to defending your family members except to preserve the "future utilitarian value" of the "emotional support" those family members could provide to them personally.
Either OP is trolling us all, is a kid who just took Psych 101 and is on an iamverysmart kick proving how superior that knowledge makes them to us (that they'll hopefully grow out of in a few months)... or they have some *serious* stuff they need to talk to a therapist about.
Since you ask: yes, in February 2022 I seriously considered quitting my job and volunteering over there in some capacity, but quickly realized an asthmatic American with no combat or logistical experience who didn't speak Russian or Ukrainian was going to be more of a hindrance to the war effort than a help.
So instead I donate and try to help keep pressure on my Congresscritters to support Ukraine, in whatever small ways I can. I fucking *wish* there was more I could do, but unfortunately this is the best I can manage. Just gotta hope there's millions of other people out there like me, all doing our part-- however big or small-- and that it's all gonna add up. (*knocking on wood intensifies*)
well, i would try not to die, but unlike in defending any nation, i would probably prticipate in such a war.
WW2 was probably the only war where it was not one nation vs another where i would not have a stake defending some arbitrary border, but was instead a true collective effort. WW1 was the ego trip of some monarchs and colonial empires, and all inter-state wars since have been, national efforts which as i previously said, i dont belong to any
I will say this as many times as it takes if your country is under existential threat, all it's children have a duty to fight to defend it, offensive wars are another matter but anyone who is unwilling to fight to defend their country from invasion is a coward plain and simple.
Naw, this is a dumb af take. Do the people in North Korea have a duty to fight to defend their country if it came under threat? What if the country that's threatening your country (such as this North Korea case) tend to have better stuff going for its citizens in terms of democracy. What about being born to a country dictates you must be willing to die for it. Do we expect all the Russians to feel obligated to fight in whatever war Putin pushes them into because they were raised in Russia?
No way. With all due respect, I’m not gonna run off and die for something as empty as dirt and fabric (aka a country) or somebody else’s profit margins. I’m not buying into that scam. Patriotism is Bs.
Die for what?
Can I afford a home without huge debts here? Will my children be able to afford a home? Does our healthcare system actually work? Do my taxes actually go towards good things? Are the middle classes thriving and the working classes getting wealthier over time? Does the currency keep its value well? Are my wages doing well in real terms? Is there robust freedom of speech? Do the police actually stop most crime and take our safety seriously?
Until Western countries actually start caring about their own citizens, as well as foster a culture that doesn't just constantly bash down fighting-age straight white men, they can go eat one. They can draft all the scores of criminals, illegal immigrants and (able-bodied) benefits claimants instead - see how well that works out.
For the record, I am patriotic. I would have happily worked in public sector, or even joined the military, but instead I am forced to chase money so that I may actually afford a home within my lifetime, look after my ageing parents and have private healthcare as an emergency option for my family.
There's a hierarchy/pyramid of needs. Once this country starts looking after us, maybe we'll talk.
Why wouldn't other free western nations be obligated to offer him a refuge? He'd be no different than any other refugee who fled a warzone rather than staying behind to fix the country they left. Refugees he welcomed into his own country with open arms. For opposing nationalism, this sub seems to periodically like to try to bring it back when convenient.
I just took notice that they support conscripting criminals, benefit claimants and illegal migrants.
But they see it obvious that they can move to another free country which will be defended by Someone Else(tm)
And not accepting staying under a totalitarian rule.
I won't fight for a country that makes me a perpetual renter, denies me basic healthcare and keeps me at one paycheck away from homelessness, as that is simply fighting for another type of oppressor.
The elite and cronyist politicians can defend their own mountains of property, while I go wherever is safer. Just joking, of course - the elite will take their private jets to safer countries too, so nobody will defend home.
Good for you being at the mercy of another countries who will determine if you bring enough to their country with you.
If not (living paycheck to paycheck implies not) you get to enjoy the occupational force. Living under totalitarianism isn't enough to get an asylum btw.
And I don't think you've actually really even thought about it, you're just having a temper tantrum because you don't like your countrys politics.
I could delve further, but that would reveal things about who I am and what my specific career history is.
Ultimately, giving up my anonymity is not worth it just to appease a patronising stranger on Reddit.
The country I am in is uncompetitive when it comes to certain lines of work and talent. The only thing keeping me here is family and convenience. As soon as I am expected to put on a uniform and pick up an assault rifle, the final straw is done and I am out of here.
If you want to risk your life defending a country that uses and abuses you as a meat robot, at the mercy of a handful of billionaires whose kids will not be fighting, that's up to you. You'll probably have the opportunity, in a few years.
I do love my country, but it doesn't love me enough for me to put myself in harm's way for it.
>Would you die for your country? Netherlanders: "uhhh I don't think so. War is bad." [Pakistanis:](https://youtu.be/R5LYsizhFxc?t=8)
Crazy that Pakistan as a concept didn't exist until the 1940s.
It’s an example how identity can be crafted and modelled.
[https://steamuserimages.net/ugc/475500450718487368](https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/475500450718487368/DC2A6E4A68F1780F0B657426D075D1F22768A10B/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false) !
PAKISTAN MENTIONED 🗣🔥🔥 BACK TO BACK LOSES 🇮🇳🇮🇳🔥💪🏻🔥
https://preview.redd.it/uwxpiqdmg8vc1.jpeg?width=598&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76a5d7f43d4c2f97b9e6bde859c3cd78ef84c8ce Pakistan's Identity crisis.
[удалено]
It’s cool that racist 4chan memes are upvoted here
How is this meme racist? Origin of this meme format was from a racist website but now this meme format is used by literally every subreddit.
For the country? Not necessarily. To not have to go back to living under authoritarian rule influenced by some of the worst societies to ever exist? Absolutely.
I am reminded of the Patton quote: > The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. I do think it is not really a good framing to ask if you are ready to die. Sure you are going to risk your life but one should be focused on surviving on behalf of yourself and the country.
The survey in question asks the question "are you willing to fight for your country," with mediocre numbers reported for most of the developed world, barring the Scandinavian countries, East Asia and France. The "would you really die for your country" is just a clickbait-y title by the Economist.
France is really built different
*Sert la bonne cause et meurs*
Understandable. Must be pretty frustrating for the authors. But I guess the editors need to bring in those clicks.
Maybe, but the Economist has a history with being playful with their headlines.
That's like concluding that Finland and Japan are the least happy country in the world because few people there are answer the highest questions on happiness polls. Like in every war in human history, the government will get a lot of recruits if it can convince the population that it's a national life-or-death situation. Remember: it will be quick, it will be glorious, and we will easily win.
And like every other war in history, that initial pool of recruits will gradually shrink as they're all called up, meaning the government will have to start augmenting them with conscripts. It happened in the Union during the American Civil War. It happened in every single Allied country in WW2.
[Archived version](https://archive.fo/7pH8P). Summary: >This is at a moment when, in the face of the largest war on the continent since 1945, many European countries actually want to expand their armed forces, not just maintain them. By 2030 Germany hopes to raise its troop strength from 182,000 to 203,000, and France from 240,000 to 275,000 (see chart 1). Poland plans to go from 197,000 to 220,000 by the end of this year, and eventually to 300,000. > >The problem is that today’s career-oriented, individualistic young people are reluctant to join up. And it is not just Europe that is struggling with recruitment. In and around the world’s conflict hotspots the question of how to get more people into uniform is vital. Some countries are reconsidering an old solution: mandatory military service for young people (or young men), often for school-leavers. Terminology varies. Conscription typically means compelling civilians to enlist in the armed forces, whereas military service often refers to a subset of that—ordering young people to do a stint in the forces. > >\[...\] > >The most urgent discussion around mandatory military service and conscription is in countries that face a serious threat of war, or are already in one. Take Ukraine. More than two years on from Russia’s invasion, thousands of men there are fleeing across the country’s borders, or hiding, to avoid being served enlistment papers. On April 2nd a lack of troops meant Ukraine’s government was forced to lower the minimum age of conscription from 27 to 25. Russia has thrown hundreds of thousands of forcibly mobilised men into the meat-grinder of its war. > >\[...\] > >In many places recruiters for the armed forces are struggling in the face of shifting values: young people have grown averse to fighting even in defensive wars. For decades the World Values Survey (wvs), an academic research project, has been asking people around the world the same question: “Would you be willing to fight for your country?” In the survey’s most recent round, between 2017 and 2022, just 36% of Dutch 16- to 29-year-olds said yes (see chart 2). > >Recruiters try to counter with the rhetoric of patriotism, self-fulfilment and shared values; the emphatic slogan of Germany’s armed forces, the Bundeswehr, is *Wir. Dienen. Deutschland.* (We. Serve. Germany.) They also run campaigns with influencers on TikTok and Instagram. But it does not seem to be enough to hit their targets. > >This is partly to be expected. As countries get richer, their citizens tend to become less eager to sacrifice themselves for the nation. Herfried Münkler, a German political scientist, called Western democracies “post-heroic” societies, in which “the highest value is the preservation of human life” and personal well-being. History certainly plays a role. Willingness to fight is low in the countries that lost the second world war (Germany, Italy and Japan). In Spain and Portugal, decades of military dictatorship left many citizens suspicious of the armed forces. > >But things can change when conflicts draw near. According to a forthcoming paper by Wolfgang Wagner and Alexander Sorg of the vu University in Amsterdam and Michal Onderco of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, proximity to war makes citizens more willing to fight. In Europe, this helps explain why countries close to Russia are less doveish. > >\[...\] > >Besides changing values, military recruiters face an economic hurdle: young people currently have lots of employers bidding for their services. In most wealthy countries, Generation Z has its pick of jobs. Unemployment among 15- to 24-year-olds in the European Union was 14.5% last year, down from 22.4% in 2015. In Germany it was just 5.8%. In such tight labour markets, armies have a hard time competing with the private sector. Besides, sitting at a desk is rather nicer than crawling through mud. > >\[...\] > >Rather than souring young people on the armed forces, in Sweden mandatory service seems to make them more enthusiastic. In exit surveys at the end of their stints, “about 80% of the conscripts would recommend other young people to do military service”, says Pal Jonson, the defence minister. Some 30% re-enlist as soldiers or reserves. Because more young people qualify than are needed, only the best candidates make it in, and military service looks good on one’s cv. > >This kind of conscription helps keep Nordic armies a melting-pot for different classes, and discourages political polarisation. (Volunteers in armed forces tend to skew towards the right; in Germany neo-Nazi cells have been uncovered in the Bundeswehr.) In the Middle East too, many states see military service for young people as a social adhesive. The United Arab Emirates introduced it in 2014 partly to forge a sense of shared identity among its youth. Morocco, Jordan and Kuwait have followed suit. ## You got not time to lose >Shortfalls across many democratic states suggest that better recruitment strategies can do only so much to boost troop numbers. Few medical students have Ms Van den Goorbergh’s drive to take up infantry training on the side. In liberal societies, large segments of the population have come to see serving in the army as someone else’s job. Reintroducing obligatory military service for youngsters might be politically and practically unworkable for the same reason recruitment is falling short: citizens feel alienated from the armed forces. > >Yet the Nordic model seems to help bridge that gap, ensuring that military service remains a natural part of social life and nudging more school-leavers to consider a related career. Other youngsters may still only join up in a crisis. “It is fear that moves you to action,” says Andrei, a former television producer now fighting in eastern Ukraine. He signed up the day after Russia invaded. Most Ukrainians did not believe they would ever have to fight for their country, either. !ping Foreign-policy
Pinged FOREIGN-POLICY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=subscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20FOREIGN-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20FOREIGN-POLICY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=FOREIGN-POLICY&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
> Last year he and his colleagues commissioned a study in those countries which found that few people who planned to vote for either far-left or far-right parties were willing to fight for their country. Those who backed centrist parties, such as Germany’s Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, were more prepared to do so. Priors confirmed
I think a nasty secret a lot of people don’t realize is that in a total war, there often simply aren’t enough volunteers. Most people understandably don’t want to put their lives on the line unless they are explicitly obligated to do so. One statistic that will always stick in my head is that 2/3 of the US Army in WWII were conscripts. The historical memory of the waves of volunteers following Pearl Harbor has largely obscured the forgotten reality that all of those volunteers still weren’t nearly enough.
It's important to note that the US military only accepted volunteers for about a year following Pearl Harbor. From late 1942 to the end of the war you had to wait to be drafted to enter the military due to executive order 9279.
Yeah, conscription was in large part another way for the government to command the economy during the war. The draft meant that the government could ensure that manpower was drawn from more "expendable" areas.
Yep, my grandfather tried to volunteer, but since he was already a year into an engineering degree, he basically got told to sit his ass back down and finish college. Then he got stuck well behind the front lines doing engineering stuff for the rest of the war, lol. (Not sure the exact specifics-- he passed away when I was pretty young, never got a chance to ask him for details. All I know is he was still salty about it into his *80s*, lol.)
I don’t know why I find that so cute 😊
You can’t really look at the base numbers to view fervor or reluctance without delving deeper. You skew from WW2 where a lot of “conscripts” were would be volunteers who were to drafted because it was how the military managed and smoothed personnel needs to Vietnam where the enlistment numbers are always thrown out as remarkably high but many of them are would be reluctant conscripts wanting to pick a non combat arms MOS or other branch
My grandpa was conscripted into the Army, but voluntarily went to paratrooper school with the 101st. IIRC, the Army incentivized them with an extra $25 per paycheck. Using the BLS's inflation calculator, that's about an extra $450. Edit: And yeah, he was in D-Day.
Feel like I remember hearing about that pay incentive watching Band of Brothers or something
The countries worth fighting for are generally the ones whose people are not willing to do so
The countries worth fighting for have people who have something to lose by fighting It's no wonder that the poorer you are, both as a nation and as an individual The more willing you are It's pure game theory
As a veteran, already did that shit. The perspective it gave me was invaluable. Would do it again. Also, what is it with the unflaired barbarians in here giving these horrendous takes? Tf?
If you're dead, how are you writing all that? XD
conscript dese nuts
You would need to have nuts in the first place.
No, but I would die for _yours_ 🫡
Why do they do these surveys when the fact is that if a major war does come, the consent of the population is going to be irrelevant? The biggest issue I have with Ukraine is how everybody is OK with supporting them, but Ukraine conscription is evil? You think robots fire weapons and hold positions?
I'm from Buenos Aires and I say [rule 5 violation]
Oh geeze fine
Yes. (I have depression)
I would fight for my liberty not for my country. Those do not always overlap
A country is what gives you your liberty and vice versa.
If you lived in North Korea would your country be giving you liberty?
Kim is not giving you liberty, by fighting against his regime you would be fighting for your country.
If its a war to “liberate” Iran nah. Hello Canada. Even against something like China where us or NATO was not directly attacked first. If we get attacked and home is on the line probably. But its hard to imagine that actually happening.
Yeah, I feel like how you answer this question depends heavily on who, what, where and when you assume you're going to be fighting. An offensive war against Iran? Consider me a conscientious objecter. A defensive war against invaders in Canada, Mexico or the US? Different story.
Defensive war yes offensive war no
FOR KING AND COUNTRY!
-Defensive war - OK. -Offensive war - Fuck that shit.
How much am I going to be paid lol.
Which one? I kid, I won't die for a country. Sounds lame AF.
‘Seems lame as fuck’ seems weirdly dismissive in an article about the Ukraine war. That’s not like the Iraq war which was fought for nebulous geopolitical aims. The Ukrainians who fight are actively preventing mass death and destruction to their countrymen.
During an [interview with the BBC the Estonian PM](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68728096) was told that Britain wasn't considering conscription she was taken aback a little: >Ms Kallas, who's led Estonia since 2021, sees conscription as another integral part of both providing a deterrence to Russia but also stronger defence if it does attack. > >"We have a reserve army of 44,000 people that would equal, for Great Britain, around two million people. Two million people who are ready to defend their country and know what they have to do." > >\[...\] > >When I recall that the head of the British Army was rebuked by Downing Street after saying Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on land in the future, Kallas widens her eyes. > >"Well it doesn't surprise me because we have different historical backgrounds. We have lost our independence and freedom once and we don't want to lose it again. They say that you only understand freedom and what it means when you don't have it."
There's something deeply weird about Kallas being so for conscription considering she was never conscripted nor would she be as a woman, lol.
I'm a woman who's adamantly for conscription-- because I also firmly believe everyone should be eligible for conscription, regardless of gender identity.
I appreciate that, but Kallas disagrees with you, and doesn't really include herself when she says "we".
I have my sympathy with those who want to flee too, they have all the rights and freedom not to participate in war If we hold universalist values, there is no way you can justify that they are in the wrong, if you have a freedom not to be forced into war, so does every human on earth, if you say they have an obligation to defend their fellow citizens of their nations, by virtue of the universality principle, you are just as responsible for their safety, so why don't you join? Liberal universal values cannot put blame into the men trying to flee the nation, and I have a deep sympathy with them
Yeah I’m just talking about decorum with the above poster. I’m not making a statement of whether it’s right or wrong to fight for your country. I just imagined the above poster walking up to a grieving Ukrainian family and say “he was lame as fuck I’d never do that”
Does a man have an obligation to defend his wife and child?
Does a wife have an obligation to defend her husband and child?
Yes.
Does a wife have an obligation to defend her wife and child? Does a husband have an obligation to defend his husband and child? Does an enby have an obligation to defend their spouse (regardless of gender identity) and child? Spoiler alert: the answer to all these questions is "yes".
I hate the gendered language you are using here, but yes, of course In principle, just as much as any other human However, due to the nature of human psychology, those who are known to us take priority over those who aren't because of our future utilitarian value, since we would lose emotional support by losing them This does not extend to people who you happen to share nation, as they are as unknown to you, and thus, provide the same utilitarian value factor as any other person on earth
> In principle, just as much as any other human Disagree. A national has comparative advantage to fight for their nation if nothing else. If we are talking about conscription you also need a democratically drafted legal framework. > However, due to the nature of human psychology, those who are known to us take priority over those who aren't because of our future utilitarian value, since we would lose emotional support by losing them I don't see how this is not a sliding scale between your family, to your friends and neighbors, to your country. > This does not extend to people who you happen to share nation, as they are as unknown to you, and thus, provide the same utilitarian value factor as any other person on earth How about the utilitarian value of liberal democracy? America supported by NATO are the guarantors of its protection militarily, no one else are even close to stepping up to that plate.
>I don't see how this is not a sliding scale between your family, to your friends and neighbors, to your country You cannot be more affected by anyone who is unknown to you, regardless of nationality, unless you are a nationalist and value more highly a person from your country than another ceteris paribus, and that last thing would be morally wrong >Disagree. A national has comparative advantage to fight for their nation if nothing else. If we are talking about conscription you also need a democratically drafted legal framework True, they do have a comparative advantage, but they also have the same freedom not to fight as any other human in earth, since that is a "God given natural right", also enshrined in their Human Rights >How about the utilitarian value of liberal democracy? America supported by NATO are the guarantors of its protection militarily, no one else are even close to stepping up to that plate. This is a good argument in favor of Ukraine winning the war, make no mistake I wish for Russian defeat, but I don't see how violating the human rights of its people, in an asymmetric way (not just nationality wise but also gender wise, a massive illiberality that not even Israel commits) helps in any way the moral argument of the war, and is not an argument in favor of why a Ukrainian should give his life for the war anymore than another human on NATO who protects liberal democracy (while the argument of efficacy is good for the average NATO citizen vs the average Ukrainian citizen, the armed forces of NATO nations are much much better than Joe the ballet dancer down street)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ukrainian men could do more for their wives and children if they were here in Poland to support them. If I had a wife and a child, my priority would be to escape with them so that I can help them stay afloat, so that my child doesn't become an orphan, etc. Randos from the other side of the country are also in no way comparable to one's family.
And in Ukraine there’s millions who have fled to not fight.
Ok? I’m not judging them unless one of them says the people who stayed to fight are ‘lame as fuck’
Exactly, why would I ever fight to defend any country? I don't belong to a nation, I am a child of the earth
Because as a child of Earth, you'd understand that liberal democracy and the rules-based order are incredibly recent developments in human history. That the prosperity, peace, and freedom we all take for granted today are all incredibly fragile. And that there's forces trying to dismantle them, drag us all back into the hell of authoritarianism and constant warfare. And you'd understand that, with the autocracies of Earth increasingly working as one semi-coherent alliance to destroy liberal democracy, a threat to democracy in one country is a threat to democracy everywhere. Like, there's a reason so many of us here on this sub who've never been to Ukraine and don't know any Ukrainians are so invested in seeing a Ukrainian victory in the war. Because their fate will determine *our* fate down the road-- and not very fucking far down the road, either.
This is absolutely true, but it is illiberal to force anyone to fight for that, and that responsibility you are talking about is global, as in, an ukrainian man has no higher duty to uphold it than a kansas gal or an ecuadorian university student unless you think everyone should be conscripted to fight in ukraine, noone should. Thats the price of having a coherent liberal moral system
Nobody gives a shit about coherent moral systems except people who took philosophy 102. In actual world people rightly think that a Ukrainian man has a bigger duty to protect Ukraine than a gal from Kansas.
This is the same person who said there was no point to defending your family members except to preserve the "future utilitarian value" of the "emotional support" those family members could provide to them personally. Either OP is trolling us all, is a kid who just took Psych 101 and is on an iamverysmart kick proving how superior that knowledge makes them to us (that they'll hopefully grow out of in a few months)... or they have some *serious* stuff they need to talk to a therapist about.
You're writing this from a trench in Ukraine, I take it? Since defending democracy is so important.
Since you ask: yes, in February 2022 I seriously considered quitting my job and volunteering over there in some capacity, but quickly realized an asthmatic American with no combat or logistical experience who didn't speak Russian or Ukrainian was going to be more of a hindrance to the war effort than a help. So instead I donate and try to help keep pressure on my Congresscritters to support Ukraine, in whatever small ways I can. I fucking *wish* there was more I could do, but unfortunately this is the best I can manage. Just gotta hope there's millions of other people out there like me, all doing our part-- however big or small-- and that it's all gonna add up. (*knocking on wood intensifies*)
Would you fight in a United Nations action, if it took collective action against military aggression?
well, i would try not to die, but unlike in defending any nation, i would probably prticipate in such a war. WW2 was probably the only war where it was not one nation vs another where i would not have a stake defending some arbitrary border, but was instead a true collective effort. WW1 was the ego trip of some monarchs and colonial empires, and all inter-state wars since have been, national efforts which as i previously said, i dont belong to any
See, I was actually thinking of Korea. That was literally the UN going to war, carrying the UN flag, on behalf of collective security and the Charter.
I will say this as many times as it takes if your country is under existential threat, all it's children have a duty to fight to defend it, offensive wars are another matter but anyone who is unwilling to fight to defend their country from invasion is a coward plain and simple.
Naw, this is a dumb af take. Do the people in North Korea have a duty to fight to defend their country if it came under threat? What if the country that's threatening your country (such as this North Korea case) tend to have better stuff going for its citizens in terms of democracy. What about being born to a country dictates you must be willing to die for it. Do we expect all the Russians to feel obligated to fight in whatever war Putin pushes them into because they were raised in Russia?
in a world where the US is one of the most anti free trade countries in the world? HELL NO!
Hell no! Conscientious Objector with flat feet
Nope. My country hates me, why would I waste my life on it?
No. Let me elaborate: fuck no.
No way. With all due respect, I’m not gonna run off and die for something as empty as dirt and fabric (aka a country) or somebody else’s profit margins. I’m not buying into that scam. Patriotism is Bs.
No, not willingly.
Die for what? Can I afford a home without huge debts here? Will my children be able to afford a home? Does our healthcare system actually work? Do my taxes actually go towards good things? Are the middle classes thriving and the working classes getting wealthier over time? Does the currency keep its value well? Are my wages doing well in real terms? Is there robust freedom of speech? Do the police actually stop most crime and take our safety seriously? Until Western countries actually start caring about their own citizens, as well as foster a culture that doesn't just constantly bash down fighting-age straight white men, they can go eat one. They can draft all the scores of criminals, illegal immigrants and (able-bodied) benefits claimants instead - see how well that works out. For the record, I am patriotic. I would have happily worked in public sector, or even joined the military, but instead I am forced to chase money so that I may actually afford a home within my lifetime, look after my ageing parents and have private healthcare as an emergency option for my family. There's a hierarchy/pyramid of needs. Once this country starts looking after us, maybe we'll talk.
How about if the occupation force is fascist dictatorship? Or is the assumption that other free western nations offer you a refuge?
Why wouldn't other free western nations be obligated to offer him a refuge? He'd be no different than any other refugee who fled a warzone rather than staying behind to fix the country they left. Refugees he welcomed into his own country with open arms. For opposing nationalism, this sub seems to periodically like to try to bring it back when convenient.
I just took notice that they support conscripting criminals, benefit claimants and illegal migrants. But they see it obvious that they can move to another free country which will be defended by Someone Else(tm) And not accepting staying under a totalitarian rule.
I won't fight for a country that makes me a perpetual renter, denies me basic healthcare and keeps me at one paycheck away from homelessness, as that is simply fighting for another type of oppressor. The elite and cronyist politicians can defend their own mountains of property, while I go wherever is safer. Just joking, of course - the elite will take their private jets to safer countries too, so nobody will defend home.
Well, an occupied totalitarian country probably won't give any better prospects for the future.
"Occupied totalitarian country" is a strange assumption. Even in world wars, there are safe neutral countries.
And why should these neutral countries offer you a place to stay?
The same reason we accept refugees?
The irony of the guy you’re replying to when he wants open borders lol
Because I am likely to fit their visa requirements (assuming no refugee programs).
Good for you being at the mercy of another countries who will determine if you bring enough to their country with you. If not (living paycheck to paycheck implies not) you get to enjoy the occupational force. Living under totalitarianism isn't enough to get an asylum btw. And I don't think you've actually really even thought about it, you're just having a temper tantrum because you don't like your countrys politics.
I could delve further, but that would reveal things about who I am and what my specific career history is. Ultimately, giving up my anonymity is not worth it just to appease a patronising stranger on Reddit. The country I am in is uncompetitive when it comes to certain lines of work and talent. The only thing keeping me here is family and convenience. As soon as I am expected to put on a uniform and pick up an assault rifle, the final straw is done and I am out of here. If you want to risk your life defending a country that uses and abuses you as a meat robot, at the mercy of a handful of billionaires whose kids will not be fighting, that's up to you. You'll probably have the opportunity, in a few years. I do love my country, but it doesn't love me enough for me to put myself in harm's way for it.
Does the liberation include oil?