Talk:Conscription

'Conscription is a way of keeping disruptive young men away from the streets, possibly training them in some skills they would not otherwise have - even if only the 17(?) words of German learnt in the Austro-Hungarian army), and allowing fertile young females to be appropriated by the next older section of males.' Discuss. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * give sauce and add it to the article, or give sauce and I'll add it in.-- 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Add in as you see fit: not totally implausible (and if someone can find the 'number of words of command in German' that had to be learnt, add it in.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if the article could benefit from this? I have been noticing these arguements and wonder if it would improve the article to add them to the article or not? The arguements are that conscription is necessary to prevent "poor quality" caused by a manpower shortage. When that is said, the arguement generally goes on either the front of recruitment or the front of manpower. The recruitment arguement goes that militaries that rely exclusively on volunteers have to use such measures as giving large recruitment bonuses, lowering basic training standards, and giving moral waivers (the allowance of entry into a military despite the ban on felons) to gain enough recruits to meet government demand at the sacrifice of a morally capable, well-trained military. The other route of the arguement is that, beyond the problems of accepting felons and less-competant people into military roles, the military has to make-up for this manpower by way of getting in roles they should not logically be doing, such as putting the Army Corps of Engineers in convoy security details, having COs that recieved training for non-infantry units in charge of infantry units, or hiring PMCs to do such things as handle logistics, protect state officials, and other roles militaries would do if they were well-staffed. Crow7878 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

An interesting argument for conscription?
I'm generally against conscription, bit I've recently heard an interesting argument in its favor not mentioned here.

According to the argument, conscripts serve as a duty to their nation and are less likely to turn against their own civilians (in case of a popular riot/rebellion/revolution) on order -- unlike mercenaries, for whom it's a job they're getting paid for.

I wonder if this argument is practically valid for inclusion into the list. Usr share (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the practical value of that is very little unless the country is %100 harmonious and homogenous. --81.175.225.92 (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole article sounds like some Libertarian rant and should be made more neutral. Mind you, the most badass and best trained and effectice armies - Israel, Switzerland, Finland - are all based on conscription. Basically every Israeli, Swiss and Finnish male (and a lot of Israeli and Finnish women) are soldiers, and praised in international reviews.89.27.50.134 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)