HyperGaming Network

General Discussion => General Discussion => 🗳️ Serious Debates => Topic started by: Gonztah on 23-01-2012

Title: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Gonztah on 23-01-2012
So. Discuss which is better and why?

Now my opinion is that conscription is a good thing. Of course this depends on what is your country but meh. Like in europe you really dont have that much use for professional armies these days when its not likely that theres going to be a war where you NEED professional armies. Between two or more european countries so basically a professional army is in my opinion a waste of money. And conscription is also a good way to maintain at least some basic health on the young men of the country.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: KingArthur on 23-01-2012
Conscription only in war time (Draft) but you need a small standing army, of course.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: jaik on 23-01-2012
conscription is a waste of our already short life, during peace or not. professional army can have a very long conscription duration, look at the third german empire for example, although the definition has changed over this time. professionalism and organization of the staff always wins over numbers, it's just a matter of how officers use you.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Overwatch on 23-01-2012
Armies are stupid when we have intercontinental missiles and Unmanned Air Vehicles.

One of them gets shot down? The guy in Vegas goes back to his hotel to do the same thing tomorrow.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Bl★ck Star on 23-01-2012
Quote from: Overwatch on 23-01-2012
Armies are stupid when we have intercontinental missiles and Unmanned Air Vehicles.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Otto on 23-01-2012
Quote from: Overwatch on 23-01-2012
Armies are stupid when we have intercontinental missiles and Unmanned Air Vehicles.

Because it's really that simple isn't it. :\
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Paintcheck on 23-01-2012
UAVs and missiles don't work for every situation and it has been proven time and again that dedicated pros are better than barely trained conscripts.

The odds of another nation state on nation state war are so long as to be almost nonexistent. In that sense a large standing army is a waste of resources.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: RanmaChan on 23-01-2012
Quote from: Paintcheck on 23-01-2012
It has been proven time and again that dedicated pros are better than barely trained conscripts.

Tell that to Austria, Prussia, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Russia when they were fighting Napoleon.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: deluxulous on 23-01-2012
Quote from: RanmaChan on 23-01-2012
Tell that to Austria, Prussia, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Russia when they were fighting Napoleon.

I'm assuming you know of the Battle of Thermopylae.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Lent23 on 23-01-2012
Quote from: PistolKid on 23-01-2012
Quote from: RanmaChan on 23-01-2012
Tell that to Austria, Prussia, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Russia when they were fighting Napoleon.

I'm assuming you know of the Battle of Thermopylae.
I'm assuming you know of the vietnam War.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Paintcheck on 23-01-2012
Which was fought on both sides by conscripts since the draft was running then and is therefore a terrible example.

However the US' training was vastly superior to the Vietnamese forces. If you look at the kill ratio it is extremely lopsided in the US' favor. Vietnam was lost not because of the soldiers on the ground but because of political failures (and the fact that there was no reason at all for the US to be fighting there when even most of South Vietnam would rather have been unified).
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: deluxulous on 26-01-2012
Quote from: Lent23 on 23-01-2012
I'm assuming you know of the vietnam War.

The Vietnam War isn't even comparable to a conventional war fought by two armies. You really are stupid. Vietnam was mainly fought by the populace of the country. Basically, you're saying that the war going on in the middle east in Afghanistan and Iraq is also being fought by the US and a conscript army.

tl;dr you can't fight a war against people only armies
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Mr. Pink on 02-02-2012
Quote from: PistolKid on 26-01-2012

tl;dr you can't fight a war against people only armies


Well, you can, actually, but we call that Genocide. Also, my opinion: Professional Army. Conscripts on top of that in times of war.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Lucky Pig on 11-02-2012
I do think conscription is good because when you stop and think on it you realize that its better to have some experience of weapons pre-war so you wont go in under pressure. Also as you said youth have now expanding issues with health and conscription helps on that part even if just a little...
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: lolKieck on 11-02-2012
And since when the army takes people whose weight is twice the amount of the optimal weight?
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Lucky Pig on 11-02-2012
Well in here if you are then you have all sorts of support groups paid by the government... Stupid in my opinion. If however you are skinny or not active for some reasons then the army would tend to give you some push that way...
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: lolKieck on 11-02-2012
Quote from: Lucky Piig on 11-02-2012
not active for some reason
And what makes you think that those people want to be active? I heard you have to do a lot of physical activity in the army.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Lucky Pig on 11-02-2012
I myself atleast was very inactive and lazy til very recently when i started to go jogging and there it started and now I'm hooked.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: CC on 21-02-2012
I believe having a mix of both is good. In some smaller like Singapore you have to conscript into the army for a while, and people who want dual citizenship for there and America;  You have to do it.  Now I'm not entirely all about conscription in some senses; But I do feel that it's good for people to go through some sort of training like that atleast once in their life in an attempt to see things in a different light or allow them to possibly or hopefully know how to manage their own life while knowing how to set their priorities. Albeit I know that there's more than the military to develop something like this but it is somewhere you can hopefully achieve it.  So when it comes to conscription; I think it's a good idea when it comes to countries which are in times of peace. Because once you've served your time, you have no obligation to stay; And if you do? More power to you.

But if you're going to speak on the matter of 'Conscription vs Professional army' I personally believe it's all conditional. If there is a large country such as the U.S or Russia or China. . . There is a need for a standing professional army, but for smaller countries; They would only really need a much smaller army with conscription.

For example for conscription: Every able-bodied man in Switzerland in conscripted into the army for a while once they are the age of 20 (or younger if they wish) And they are trained in basic military whatever they call it these days. After all that's done, they're given a military-grade rifle in which they're allowed to take home with them (Usually a SIG550 or something like that, I don't remember the details since I'm not very educated on this matter.).  This is a pretty bad example though since the Swiss have always been paranoid of invasion and have always been very defensive of their land. But again, small countries in my honest opinion NEED to conscript even if it is for a year of hell, half a year. Just because they do not have the ability to be as relaxed as most larger countries whom have large standing armies (Speaking in worst case scenarios of course. But it's always good to be prepared to an extent.).

An example for professional armies: America is a very large country compared to others, and for some reason; We decide it's a good idea to put our noses in everyone's business and have generally associated being in the army or whatever as 'Serving our country'. So not only do we not have a problem with getting people to come into the American military but it is a necessity to ...Well atleast it seems in the government's eyes to keep a large standing army. Then again, most countries should have atleast somewhat of a professional army to lead the conscripts along. I am not imply in any way though that everyone should just join the military or whatever.

Again, this is all just conditional and whatever I spew on here should be taken with a grain of salt etc.

If you ask me though, they're both needed in their own right to different countries in their own way. SO it's very hard to just generalize them against each other like that. (Then again I am an indecisive bastard who could rant on forever about dumb things.)

I realize there are probably tons of fallacies within my argument and have /maybe/ derailed a bit.
TL;DR

You can't just pick one in my opinion.

Hooray for necroposting.
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Overwatch on 21-02-2012
/me punches CC in the stomach, aborting ace's baby, which they decided to call Yorty.






Necro >:|
Title: Re: Conscription vs Professional army.
Post by: Spades_Neil on 22-04-2012
CC's post is large enough and well-thought enough to necro. Carry on.

Personally I think putting every able adult through at least a year or two of the military would teach some damn respect. This coming from HGN's hippie, according to Blake.