Should conscription be re-introduced in 21st Century Australia? (3 Viewers)

[JonathanM]

And if shit ever got so bad as to require more troops than we currently have, then I think it's pretty fucking reasonable to ask for some help from the best army in the world, because shit must have really hit the fan.

You've clearly never read "Tomorrow When the War Began" by John Marsden xD.

Australia has one of the smallest army in the world (per capita). We only have a 54, 000 strong army (including reservists) and are quickly coming under the sphere of China who have a 2+ million strong army and nukes. I mean FFS, the army white paper tipped a risk of us falling behind Indonesia in respect of air superiority (and they have an army over 4 times as big as ours). Granted we do have one of the most highly trained armies, numerical superiority always has its advantages.

I think it is important for there to be basic military training for all Australians turning 18, particularly with the bleak future we are looking forward to with climate change, peak oil etc. which will surely spark many local conflicts. Don't misunderstand what I mean by conscription though. We have a fighting army and a reserve army, the reserve army would only be called up in the defense of the country itself, not shipped out to some random shit hole.

If shit ever got so bad as to require conscription, recruiting a bunch of average Joes would do jack shit.

Just to give a case example; Israel has conscription and their 'average Joes' seem to have served them quite well in the past.

 

[nousernameleft]

that would be outrageous

we have no reason to go to war

america's policies in the middle east got them in the mess they are in

clinton's policies with pakistan indirectly helped north korea

conscription is kidnapping

 

[SylviaB]

You've clearly never read "Tomorrow When the War Began" by John Marsden xD.

I have, and it' a stupid book :O : O :O

Australia has one of the smallest army in the world (per capita). We only have a 54, 000 strong army (including reservists) and are quickly coming under the sphere of China who have a 2+ million strong army and nukes.

What the fuck is consrciption goingto do against nukes ffs?

I think it is important for there to be basic military training for all Australians turning 18, particularly with the bleak future we are looking forward to with climate change, peak oil etc.

1. Encourage it, but it's wrong to force it.

2. How is Australia at all...well, relevant? We have a water shortage, and we don't have much oil to offer.

Just to give a case example; Israel has conscription and their 'average Joes' seem to have served them quite well in the past.

That's completely incomparable.

 

[Jaylee42003]

You've clearly never read "Tomorrow When the War Began" by John Marsden xD.

Australia has one of the smallest army in the world (per capita). We only have a 54, 000 strong army (including reservists) and are quickly coming under the sphere of China who have a 2+ million strong army and nukes. I mean FFS, the army white paper tipped a risk of us falling behind Indonesia in respect of air superiority (and they have an army over 4 times as big as ours). Granted we do have one of the most highly trained armies, numerical superiority always has its advantages.

I think it is important for there to be basic military training for all Australians turning 18, particularly with the bleak future we are looking forward to with climate change, peak oil etc. which will surely spark many local conflicts. Don't misunderstand what I mean by conscription though. We have a fighting army and a reserve army, the reserve army would only be called up in the defense of the country itself, not shipped out to some random shit hole.

lollllllllll

god i cant ppl actually think im being serious when i say i support conscription. i dnt want anyone who doesnt wanna die to fucking dieeeee :mad1: or get poisoned or shell shock or post traumatic stress or have thier guts blown out. unfair.
let ppl decide by pure personal choice if they r willing to risk such uglies^^ for their country.

 

[katie tully]

1) We've been going around fighting wars of conquest which do not concern us.
2) Not fit enough. :mad1:

50% of Australians are overweight or obese, so we haven't got a large pool to choose able bodied men and women from have we.

 

[sam04u]

Israel has a militant culture. Most of them actively want to serve, mainly because they live with a constant, genuine security threat. Australians would actively resist any sort of conscription, including compulsory military training, by doing it badly and feigning ignorance, incompetence, and physical problems. I know I sure as hell would resist participating in such a program in any way possible.

Good sir, I question your manliness due to this comment.

 

[yuri_gagarin]

im the most manly person on bos

just sayin

if there was a bos army id be the sas and the navy seals tbh

 

[katie tully]

atie I'm going to explain this fully so that you might understand as I do the necessity of such a conscription as I outlined (one which exists solely for defensive wars).

We have a military because we do not exist as a sole entity on this planet. There are other countries which will not always agree with us and will on some occasions have conflicting self interests with us. When that is the case diplomacy where possible will occur and we will attempt to negotiate. In the event that we can not come to an agreement there will be other measures taken to ensure that either a compromise is reached or one of the self interests will be enacted over the other.

How many countries have we gone to war with purely because diplomacy hasn't worked? IIRC, World War 2 wasn't started because we had a diplomatic fall out with Hitler and Japan. Idk, something to do with them wanting world domination.

We disagree with countries all the time. Thus far, none of them have threatened obliteration as a consequence have they?

There are several ways this can occur and in modern times this will be a combination of diplomatic manouevering, trade embargos and economic sanctions which will act as a measure of which country has the ability to sway the other in order to ensure their self interests are enacted.

All of which have been done successfully to many rogue states without the prospect of a full scale invasion.
It's not worth their efforts. The nearest 'rogue states' are fkn eons away from us. Unless they've got the worlds most amazing Navy, it's not worth their effort to invade us. We're relatively pissweak ok, so even if we impose sanctions, trade embargo's, etc, so fkn what?

In the event that none of these measures are effective there is a third option. That option is the use of military force. Now I find wars of aggression to be abhorrent and nobody should have to lay their lives on the line for something so ridiculous. However to some the concept of aggressive war is not at all out of the question and is threatened constantly. (namely the countries which we have been aligned with since before WWII the United Kingdom and the United States of America)

too stupid didnt read

As that is the case each country regardless of whether or not a current threat exists must have a military to defend itself in the event that relations between another entity degrade to a point of open warfare.

Citation needed.

Now considering that we must have a military (even the swedes and the dutch have far greater numbers of active military than we) we must have one that is worthy of the name. We must be able to defend our country in the event that it would come under attack by a foreign entity who would wish to neglect our self interests and forcibly impose their will on us by use of force destroying our livelihoods in the process.

Again, this is not a realistic prospect given
a. We're in the middle of nowhere, and save a full scale naval attack, nobody can be fucked
b. We don't have anything anyone wants. Large expanses of desert? Omfg yes plz!
c. We have powerful allies.

As such it is our obligation to best be able to defend our livelihoods in the event that it might be threatened in such a way.

Yes ok and should a threat ever rear its ugly head, people will have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to fight, or whether they want to submit.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Why is there even a debate here? omg the issue has been settled. I read through the responses and the for-side has been obliterated.

Sorry for not making a more useful response but srsly, wtfbbq? WHO STILL BELIEVES IN CONSCRIPTION.

For you see, *reads out last three pages*

 

[Big Boss]

Only a minority of the people here understand the situation.
The rest of you are defenseless fools who would no doubt be and should be killed when encountering a life-threatening situation and taking modern society's luxury and comforts for granted.

Demilitarisation of a nation will lead to the demise of a country.
A government without an army is as good as dead.
An army without a government is an option to consider.

The point is, with military experience and/or training your chances of survival would increase and certain threats that would have taken your life would be easily neutralised.
It does not necessarily mean fighting on foreign soil but rather I should have mentioned and focused on important survival skills and home defense rather than an invasion.
Some of the skills taught especially self-defense and other general survival techniques with little or no resources can be applied.
Can you release yourself from someone's chokehold?
Do you know what to do when there is a possibly a threat of a nuclear/chemical/biological warfare?
Can you fight back unarmed against someone who has a knife?
Obviously many of you vermins don't know how and will perish first.

Some do not have the will to survive.
Obviously conscription is often the only way many can develop that skill to fight and survive.

 

[sam04u]

How many countries have we gone to war with purely because diplomacy hasn't worked? IIRC, World War 2 wasn't started because we had a diplomatic fall out with Hitler and Japan. Idk, something to do with them wanting world domination.

Australia is not the exception just because it is not the example.

We disagree with countries all the time. Thus far, none of them have threatened obliteration as a consequence have they?

Australia did play a part in Afghanistan and Iraq, yes.

Citation needed.

It's common sense.

a. We're in the middle of nowhere, and save a full scale naval attack, nobody can be fucked
b. We don't have anything anyone wants. Large expanses of desert? Omfg yes plz!
c. We have powerful allies.

a) We are not in the middle of nowhere. This isn't the 1800s. The world is alot smaller than you think.

b) We have minerals and resources.

c) we are in the middle of two of our most powerful countries who have disagreements. So yes, we can not rely on our allies if they push for us to pick a side should shit hit the fan.

Yes ok and should a threat ever rear its ugly head, people will have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to fight, or whether they want to submit.

Don't you think it would be better if they knew how to pick up a gun and aim it should it come to that? Or should they be ill-equipped and ill-trained for such an event?

 

[sam04u]

sounds good to me.

You're such an anarchist/libertarian.

 

[SylviaB]

You're such an anarchist/libertarian.

You say it like it's bad thing.

 

[sam04u]

Its fairly clear that if it came to it, we would side with the United States and its allies, which are still far more powerful than China is, or will be in the foreseeable future.

China has quite a number of powerful allies. They really should not be underestimated. And as far as we're concerned they're more valuable an ally than the US.

 

[sam04u]

You say it like it's bad thing.

No I mean he takes even that to an extreme. I mean he'd probably want to revert to tribal life with bartering for basic foodstuffs and no governance whatsoever. I mean come on.

 

[Empyrean444]

Basic problem: if security is such a looming issue and we feel the need for a revamp, then I think that troop no. would be one of the last places to start. First of all, we would look at upgrading the technology and numbers (of machines or the 'weapons of war') of both the Navy and the Airforce (ie constructing large groups of ac carriers, subs, better fighter planes etc and in larger numbers). Naturally, we would then look to acquiring the necessary numbers to man / fly / operate these pieces of technology. Many of these are specialist, which would make conscription undesirable and probably ineffectual; and I doubt it would be a necessity for fulfilling the required no.

We would then look to developing a decent and largely independant (or at least capable of indepedance if the situation called for it) war industry - aim at the long term production of our own munitions, ammo, uniforms, weapons, vehicles, etc. Furthermore, we would aim to expand (as before) our own engineering areas which relate to the design of such devices.

Once we came to the army, if we really wanted to improve it, we would look to upgrading our armour no. and level of technological advancement. Then, possibly then, we would come to the issue of troop numbers - we have a fair distance to go before we even need to consider conscription. As it stands, simply increasing the number of troops would do very little in a modern war (even though the army is still essential). A mass of bodies are not going to defend against against nukes or standard cruise/ballistic missiles (indeed, if we regarded this as a seroius threat, we would begin to look to developing effective counter active defensive systems instead). And it would work far better if we developed a better method of persuading a larger number of people that entering the army/ other armed branch was desirable in not only a personal and fiscal level, but also on a wider cultural level, rather than violating our national principles by forcing people to fight. Also persuading soldiers to stay in the army a long time after their minimum service time has expired would also assist (ie maintaining a strong veteran base). Conscription would also fail simply because the public would reject it and try at every term to undermine it. It would not make a noteworthy difference.

 

[sam04u]

Just plain wrong.

The numbers just don't add up. Also according to that list Russia spends only a few times more than Iraq does. Does that mean that Iraq would stand a chance against Russia in a war? That's laughable.

China's allies include the signatories to the Shanghai Cooperation Pact and BRIC countries. Which are a force to be reckoned with.

 

[yuri_gagarin]

The numbers just don't add up. Also according to that list Russia spends only a few times more than Iraq does. Does that mean that Iraq would stand a chance against Russia in a war? That's laughable.

China's allies include the signatories to the Shanghai Cooperation Pact and BRIC countries. Which are a force to be reckoned with.

Who are these allies, list please

 

[katie tully]

Demilitarisation of a nation will lead to the demise of a country.

Hey... what's this ... Japan and Germany both demilitarised after WW2 ... and hey wtf Germany and Japan both still exist?!

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Hey... what's this ... Japan and Germany both demilitarised after WW2 ... and hey wtf Germany and Japan both still exist?!

and are amongst the worlds most developed countries

lol