Are there good arguments for it? If it's compulsory, maybe you need to run your country differently so people feel its worth voluntarily defending. And/Or you can recruit heavily in areas where folks are disadvantaged and have few options, dangling education in front of them in exchange for being willing to kill or die for you.

The funny thing about knowing 18 year olds at 50+ vs being 18 years old is you can see the children these kids still are. Allowing them to join? OK. Forcing them to murder for you? As a veteran who joined at 19, no.

https://youtu.be/UQH3ZYTtY68

[–] Jordan_U@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Or you can recruit heavily in areas where folks are disadvantaged and have few options, dangling education in front of them in exchange for being willing to kill or die for you.

This is absolutely what we do in the U.S. and it's abhorrent.

I guess what I want is for nobody to be so desperate for their basic needs that they feel compelled to kill and die in war.

And if we had a country that cared for all of its citizens and didn't start wars of aggression, maybe more people would want to enlist as they have real values to protect and have a reasonable expectation that they won't be committing atrocities?

Honestly not a criticism of you or your comment. Lot's of people are advocating for the same thing; You just said it plainly.

...Anyway, this is all terrible and we absolutely can do better, starting with building community locally, mutual aid, protesting, and listening to marginalized and oppressed people's.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This is absolutely what we do in the U.S. and it’s abhorrent.

I'm definitely aware and agree with all your points.

Honestly not a criticism of you or your comment. Lot’s of people are advocating for the same thing; You just said it plainly.

No worries, I did it somewhat sardonically. I don't like that arrangement much more than compulsion. These are people we don't trust to drink responsibly for three more years, but we tell ourselves it's fair to expect them to make a mature, rational decision to sign their lives away for a period of time (or forever) with no life experience whatsoever.

[–] heroball@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What about the argument that it gets more buy-in and attention from the public? That if everyone has to participate, then the public will care more and hold the military more accountable? I agree that forcing people to serve a genocidal military is wrong, though. And maybe compulsory military service doesn’t hold the military accountable (see Israel). Or maybe that is further proof that the Israeli population supports the IOF

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There's some gray - but most of it is predicated (I think) on some version of "there's no other way" to defend the nation. I'm just less convinced now that I'm older that this is a true statement - but I don't claim to have the answers. Any alternative approach would likely require a serious paradigm shift, and I don't personally see that as likely without something catastrophic preceding such a shift.

My position is primarily that I'm unwilling to ever say that it's a good idea to take an 18 year old, force them to join the military, and expect them to kill. We've got laws that make it clear we don't trust them with alcohol so it seems cruel and unfair to take someone who likely has next to zero life experience past high school, and then force them into your military.

[–] heroball@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago

I agree. It just depends on if you can have a “good” standing military or not. If that is possible—to have a peaceful standing military dedicated to self defense that spends the rest of its time idk helping people or providing labor or something—I’d be cool with it. But sending teenagers across the world to shoot poor brown people is obviously loathsome .

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Conscription against the nazis invading the USSR in a war of extermination

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Ok, but barring corner cases...

Edit - and arguably it's still not a "good" idea - that's something you do because you feel there's no other choice at that point. It solves the short term problem, doesn't strike me as healthy for the populace in a long term way.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It is healthy for the populace in the sense that only 26 million people die instead of the vast majority of a population of 150 million, which would have happened without conscription.

It is justified when the war is an existential threat to the people of an area, not of the state ruling the area.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't disagree at all, just saying it's not a way to keep your standing army populated that I can agree with. I don't think this is at odds with your clarification, but if I'm missing your point please don't hesitate to reel me in.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/UQH3ZYTtY68

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

I think it works well in Switzerland.