Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews have a duty to serve their country Annulling the Haredi exemption from national service has ignited civic tensions but it is for the long-term good of Israeli society
The annulment of the so-called Tal Law exempting ultra-orthodox seminary students from conscription to the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is threatening to engulf Israeli society in yet another internal imbroglio. Secular-religious relations are barely below boiling point at the best of times, and the latest high-court ruling threatens to see the cauldron bubble over for months to come.
Yeshiva (seminary) students have been exempt from national service since the earliest days of the state, after Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, struck an ill-fated deal with the Haredi community, allowing 400 full-time scholars to remain in learning rather than take up arms to defend the country. This 400-man ceiling was lifted in 1977, ushering in a decades-long stand-off between those on either side of the secular-religious divide.
Love it or hate it, the IDF is critical to the survival of the Israeli state in its current form – hence most mainstream Israelis willingly send their sons and daughters off to complete their compulsory national service when they turn 18. In their eyes, the army should be the great leveller for Israeli society – rich, poor, tall, short: all know their duty to the state, and all expect their fellow citizens to pull their weight.
But to a significant group of Israeli Jews – the million-strong Haredi community – serving their country in either a military or vocational capacity is of scant interest or importance. And, thanks to their political clout in Israel's fragile system of proportional representation, when the Haredim want things their way, they invariably come out on top.
From taking outrageous sums out of governmental coffers to fund religious schooling to pressurising state-run bus companies to enforce illegal gender-segregation on their routes, the ultra-orthodox community has been wreaking havoc on civic Israeli society for years – and the problem is only getting worse.
Rightwing Israeli nationalists regularly entreat their government to deal with the "ticking time bomb" of Israeli-Arab population growth, fearful that the Zionist project will collapse in on itself if demographic shifts result in more non-Jewish citizens than Jews. As unpalatable as such rhetoric is, it also assumes that if only the majority of the country was Jewish, then all would be well in Israeli society.
Bitter experience with the unwieldy Haredi community shows this is far from the case, and the annulment of the Tal Law puts the issue firmly at the forefront of the national consciousness once more.
The massive Haredi birth rate sustains the Jewish element of the population. It also means that the proportion of Israel's population who are ultra-orthodox has rocketed to more than 10%, with the vast majority of Haredi males going into yeshiva learning rather than completing their national service. Full-time Torah study used to be the preserve of only the most talented and able-minded scholars, while the rest worked for a living and contributed to the upkeep of the students.
However, the fiscal capitulation of successive Israeli governments to the Haredim has meant almost every adult Haredi male can now afford to eschew paid employment in favour of yeshiva study, to the chagrin of secular Israeli society. Their sense of injustice is heightened over the issue of national service, and rightly so, yet their pleas to the Haredim to do their bit fall on deaf ears.
Haredim believe it is their study of Torah and prayers, rather than soldiers' manoeuvres in the field, that provide the last line of defence for the Jewish people – but such ethereal posturing does little to assuage the hostility their draft evasion engenders. Nor do proclamations such as that of Haredi leader Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, who denounced the high-court ruling as "a decree to uproot religion", adding:
"We are commanded to protect [religion] with our lives without exception, God forbid, in order to sanctify the name of heaven. The purpose of this awful decree is to harm the heart of Judaism – this cannot be in Israel."
By flouting the laws of conscription, the Haredi community may well be challenging some important Talmudic directives. For example, the principle of dina d'malchuta dina (literally, the law of the land is the law). Jews are commanded to respect the laws of the host country in which they are domiciled, in order to foster good relations between themselves and their fellow citizens. Equally, there is the principle that preservation of life takes precedence over (almost) all other religious obligations. But when it comes to the Haredim in Israel, such civic-minded thinking goes out of the yeshiva window.
Instead, the ultra-orthodox prefer to endorse a caste system where only secular families send their children to the frontline, while their Haredi peers sit with their heads in books in safe and secure study halls. And woe betide any political faction who tries to stop them, or yet another coalition will be brought to its knees. The Haredim have no problem getting involved in mainstream society when it suits them, namely at the voting booth, but the buck stops there. Until the Haredim embrace their duties more holistically, secular Israelis must act to stop the rot, for the long-term good of all citizens of the state.
Personally I like the idea of a system where people are made equal regardless of their race, creed or social standing. I think having compulsory military service, or at least a national service, would be a really healthy thing for a society. It would go a fair way in instilling discipline, not to mention a sense of self-worth. People would also be much more appreciative of our forces currently fighting overseas, after all you could easily have been one of the people putting their lives at risk. I can see the downside of increased military spending, but beyond that I think the net benefits far outweigh the detriment.
What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
Speaking as an American with our unique attitudes and strengths to warmaking, I think it's a bad idea. You can't compel excellence, and we need excellence for today's modern, low intensity conflicts. I think by definition freely volunteered professional soldiers will always deliver a substantially different battlefield performance than conscripts.
If you live in a different country your strategy may be a lot different.
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
Speaking as an American with our unique attitudes and strengths to warmaking, I think it's a bad idea. You can't compel excellence, and we need excellence for today's modern, low intensity conflicts. I think by definition freely volunteered professional soldiers will always deliver a substantially different battlefield performance than conscripts.
If you live in a different country your strategy may be a lot different.
Well, I'm not suggesting anything like a zerg rush with fresh conscripts. And while volunteered professional soldiers may be altogether better in a combat situation, and would always be valued, the sheer numbers a country like the US could bring to hand would be staggering, certainly enough to put a squad on every street corner in cases of occupation. This would free up a lot of the professionals from routine duties and allow them to be put where they're really needed.
Since your objections seem purely based on the military effectiveness of the recruits, would you have anything against a (slightly longer) term of national service?
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
If the question is simply what do I think of compulsory service I'm opposed to it in general. If the question is specifically about the Haredi as the article you linked is then I am all for it.
In the grand scheme of things volunteer professional armies are really the most effective force in the dominant military scheme. With high educational, and for the US an above average physical demands even for the trooper farthest from the frontlines. There's just not as much place for the human wave as there once was; don't get me wrong it still exists plenty.
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
If the question is simply what do I think of compulsory service I'm opposed to it in general. If the question is specifically about the Haredi as the article you linked is then I am all for it.
In the grand scheme of things volunteer professional armies are really the most effective force in the dominant military scheme. With high educational, and for the US an above average physical demands even for the trooper farthest from the frontlines. There's just not as much place for the human wave as there once was; don't get me wrong it still exists plenty.
I agree in part, but certainly not with the bit in bold. Have you seen the educational requirements for a basic trooper?
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
If the question is simply what do I think of compulsory service I'm opposed to it in general. If the question is specifically about the Haredi as the article you linked is then I am all for it.
In the grand scheme of things volunteer professional armies are really the most effective force in the dominant military scheme. With high educational, and for the US an above average physical demands even for the trooper farthest from the frontlines. There's just not as much place for the human wave as there once was; don't get me wrong it still exists plenty.
I agree in part, but certainly not with the bit in bold. Have you seen the educational requirements for a basic trooper?
Depends really on what you consider a "basic trooper." I normally make the assumption people who say that mean a line infantryman; who is not by the way the dumbest guy in the military. In this day and age an infantryman must be able to operate various types of equipment varying from his weapon to a computerized anti tank or anti aircraft system. The last data I can remember is quite old: from about 1998. At that time the average IQ in the US armed forces was 108. The average IQ of an American adult is 98. There is certainly a bottom end, those guys generally aren't in combat arms branches. We can agree to disagree if you like, I'd rather no belabor the point.
Just as a fun fact: Socrates was an infantryman, in Athens.
The military should not be used for social engineering. Go create a jumped up form of Scouts or similar if you want to do that.
The British military maintains its excellence through being professional and maintaining high esprit de corps. We're all there because we want to be, because we enjoy it and are loyal to our regiment and mates, and have worked to get where we are. You can't force somebody into that kind of thinking.
If I had to fight alongside the average person in the street, I think I'd honestly be safer tap-dancing in a minefield.
Hazardous Harry wrote:
What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
Its a bad idea in all but a very narrow set of circumstances. It works well for a nation like Israel that is relatively small with a history of facing serious military threats, but for a nation like the US its simply wasted money.
As for national service: I wouldn't want to do it, as it would most likely just serve to delay any other plans I might have for minimal, if any, reward. I don't give nearly enough of a damn about any institution to accept that.
Would it be good for society? Possibly, though I'm not convinced it would necessarily instill discipline (What do you do with people that refuse to work?) and a sense of self-worth (What am I worth if I'm forced to do this thing I don't want to do?).
Hazardous Harry wrote:
What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?
Its a bad idea in all but a very narrow set of circumstances. It works well for a nation like Israel that is relatively small with a history of facing serious military threats, but for a nation like the US its simply wasted money.
As for national service: I wouldn't want to do it, as it would most likely just serve to delay any other plans I might have for minimal, if any, reward. I don't give nearly enough of a damn about any institution to accept that.
Would it be good for society? Possibly, though I'm not convinced it would necessarily instill discipline (What do you do with people that refuse to work?) and a sense of self-worth (What am I worth if I'm forced to do this thing I don't want to do?).
This. I would never consider the military. I just don't care enough for it. I'm too much of an anarchist at heart. Having me in would probably be worse than having me out.
Whilst I agree with the above that professional volunteer service is the ideal in regards to the military, not all national service has to be strictly military in nature, especially not for front-line soldiers. I think if it was to come in anywhere, the line infantry would need to remain wholly volunteers. Even within the military there are roles that could be performed behind the lines. The idea of national service does not need to be entirely military though. There are jobs that can be done outside the military that could use the extra manpower.
I'm for national service - military style training and living for all, and a choice of combat support roles, or civil support roles for all those taking part.
I hate the idea. The US Fed Gov't should not be responsible for employing and paying every single citizen for a couple of years (or any length of time), nor for paying to grow the force to the size it would have to be to allow that. Tax payers should not have to fund something like that because it is not needed.
Even with some non-military but mandatory 'national service' it is a masive waste of resources and would still never come close to being 'fair'. You'll get some crap bag who weasles their way into a job counting books for a couple years in the national archives instead of digging drainage ditches or what ever. And again, it would all basically be labor for some made up need paid for by tax payers.
The very idea of compulsory military service goes against everything America should stand for i.e no standing army and the defence of the realm to be left in the hands of militias. That might sound a bit 1770s, but there it is.
Conscription or compulsory service in the UK has always proved unpopular (except when Germans are involved) so it would never take off.
I think the article touches on a concept beyond just "mandatory military service", it touches on "social-group exemptions".
I'm wholly and unequivocably against exemptions based on a given social group, any group, especially if said group is going to have heavy say in how the government responds.
Especially in the case of Israel, you have a group of ultra-orthodox shazbags pushing their weight around, expecting everyone else to defend them and aquiesce to their way of doing things. Frell that. You want social services provided by the governemnt, you do your damn part in providing them.
CptJake wrote:And again, it would all basically be labor for some made up need paid for by tax payers.
I'm not entirely sure that's true as there's no need for all people involved in mandatory service to be employed in manual labor. There are a host of menial bureaucratic tasks in which serving individuals could be employed. Additionally, there's no particular reason that everyone would have to begin their service at, say, 18. You could establish an age by which service must be completed, and then require all citizens to serve for a period of time (Measured in years, months, days, or hours.) prior to that age.
As such the relevant questions are:
1) Is it politically feasible? (No.)
2) Is it more cost effective than normal government employment? (Maybe.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:
Especially in the case of Israel, you have a group of ultra-orthodox shazbags pushing their weight around, expecting everyone else to defend them and aquiesce to their way of doing things. Frell that. You want social services provided by the governemnt, you do your damn part in providing them.
The Haredim are a special case when it comes to the ultra-orthodox community in that the majority of them are anti-zionist. There are even factions of Haredim that support Hamas and Iran.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Since your objections seem purely based on the military effectiveness of the recruits, would you have anything against a (slightly longer) term of national service?
I'd be totally OK with that; especially in light of stop-lossing. Having them sign up for a longer term right off the bat would be a much more honest way of doing things.
I don't agree with compulsory military service, but "compulsory public service" ?? I think I could get behind that....
Lump all government into this, and include senate and house of reps. into this category, limit the amount of time a person can be a senator, representative, etc. just like we do the pres.
We'd have to come up with a system similar to military MOSs, where a "career councelor" sits down with ya when you're gettin ready to enter your service period, they have a look at your ASVAB scores, and you get one of several (or not so many, depending on how bright a crayon you are)... this way, yeah people are serving "against their will" but at least they are going somewhere where they should do good at, thus building confidence, etc. prior to entering the "real workforce"
Hazardous Harry wrote:Since your objections seem purely based on the military effectiveness of the recruits, would you have anything against a (slightly longer) term of national service?
I'd be totally OK with that; especially in light of stop-lossing. Having them sign up for a longer term right off the bat would be a much more honest way of doing things.
Our guys DO sign up for a longer term off the bat. 8 years. They must serve a portion of that 8 active duty depending on the terms of their specfic enlistment contract, but are subject to be recalled or to stay on active duty the full 8 years if Unca Sam needs then to. Cases where a trooper was 'stop lossed' past that are pretty darned rare. Generally (at least army) the first re-enlistment negates that 8 years and makes you 'indef', or you serve until retirement or you submit your paperwork to get out. At that point again, just because you decide you want out doesn't mean your chosen dates are accepted. None of this info is hidden from the troops. In fact, it is explained to them multiple times in the process. Some don't make an effort to understand, misunderstand, or choose to ignore the terms of their contract and think that 'I only enlisted for 3 years' even though the paperwork they signed and had explained is for an 8 year term.
mattyrm wrote:I think the best regiments should be given conscripted meat shields to wear on deployment.
Says the Commando...
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm against national service but if like Israel you have to have it then it should apply to everyone equally.
I think especially in Israel where so much public money is spent on social programs and benefits are received and taken advantage of by the Haredi, it is only fair to expect them to pay back the body politic. Not to mention the pretty simple Human Resources math that excluding like 1/7th of the Jewish population is ridiculous, they need to be responsible for defending their country just as much as the seculars.
CptJake wrote:
Generally (at least army) the first re-enlistment negates that 8 years and makes you 'indef', or you serve until retirement or you submit your paperwork to get out.
If you make everyone do a few years after high school, then there would be more pressure on the government to to wrap up these wars and bring out troops home. Plus there would be a lot more reluctance about starting a new war with Iran.
Ouze wrote:I guess I wasn't aware that stop-lossing was as rare as you say, I was under the impression that it was a fairly common practice.
REAL stop lossing is rare, people say they were stop lossed when they were merely stop movement. I cant remember but Im pretty sure that even before the retroactive program there was special pay attached to stop losses. When I have ran into it in person it was almost always in the most threadbare MOS' that simply could not train replacements before that person was leaving. Stop movement is actually pretty common though.
You want me?
someone who Is over weight, and has bad lungs to go into the military?
No, Keep people where they are most effective.
All we would be doing is getting more people killed who shouldnt have been there in the first place.
More related to the article than the topic, it''s good to see that religious extremists can't use their religious extremism to get out of serving their country I suppose.
Religious/Conscientious objectors can be given non-violent jobs, such as medical, staffing, desk jobs, etc to protect their religious vows and views while still serving.
As for mandatory service in the US, as long as it included both civilian (IE non-military governmental bodies) AND military I think it'd work.
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
I think a year's national service at the end of school would do wonders for a lot of the wasters I currently work with. And would have done wonders for me, too.
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
Really? What were they?
Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.
I wasn't opposed to the idea when it was being tossed around in 2001-2002 by the government and I'm not opposed now. As long as the option for civil service is provided and it's not strictly military service I can see a lot of benefits to the system.
I think young people would benefit from military-style discipline and levelling. It might also give one a 'stake' in society and an understanding of citizenship.
Military service doesn't necessarily have to be in a frontline capacity; there could be military labour, relief services, ambulances, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote:
AustonT wrote:
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
Really? What were they?
Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.
Civilians turn against wars the moment the body bags come home.
While it may work for other countries, it's a terrible idea for the U.S. First off, there's too many people. If there is anything left of the government to bankrupt, we'd bankrupt it in under 5 years. Second, because of the overwhelming distrust of the government by the populace, and because of U.S. culture in general, it would not go down well with the citizenry. I see riots. Big riots.
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
Really? What were they?
Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.
So you just made that up, somehow I thought you were serious and instead you returned with white shields. I'm disappointed.
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
Really? What were they?
Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.
So you just made that up, somehow I thought you were serious and instead you returned with white shields. I'm disappointed.
It was an attempt to be disingenuous, as we've not done it since or really talked about it . Clearly, it wasn't a good one.
I'm sure there must have been a few advantages to it, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. I mean, surely the ones in charge of such things know what they're doing, right?
Also, I'm disappointed. Serious has no place in OT.
daedalus wrote:
It was an attempt to be disingenuous, as we've not done it since or really talked about it . Clearly, it wasn't a good one.
I'm sure there must have been a few advantages to it, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. I mean, surely the ones in charge of such things know what they're doing, right?
Also, I'm disappointed. Serious has no place in OT.
You're claiming politicians know what they are doing; that's a dark road.
The advantage of the draft when we instituted it in the world wars was our military grew from a tiny standing force to a millions strong Juggernaut. Outside warm bodies there's not a whole lot of advantages that I know of, I was genuinely wondering if there were any.
I think somebody has been reading starship troopers again Anyway, I don't understand this notion that by serving your country, you're morally superior to somebody that doesn't. There is a big difference between law and justice. I hate to envoke Godwin's law? but SS members were serving their country. Does that make it right?
Similary, if you think about it, what right did the US have in stationing troops in Vietnam, or conscripting average joes to be killed in the jungle. Was there a risk of invaion to the US mainland from Vietnam? Ditto anything to do with Britain's empire.
As I mentioned earlier, it's not the 1770s, but the idea of a standing army was frowned upon by your founding fathers, hence the whole 2nd amendment thing, which produces the modern paradox of right wing people supporting the army but supporting the right to have weapons.
As a result, I am surprised at the level of support for consciption/national service from the American posters on this site.
I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.
Amaya wrote:I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.
Of course, if you look at politicians and pundits supporting a return of the draft in the US, you are gonna find they are predominantly left wing types... Unless that is what you meant by warhawks of course.
Amaya wrote:I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.
Of course, if you look at politicians and pundits supporting a return of the draft in the US, you are gonna find they are predominantly left wing types... Unless that is what you meant by warhawks of course.
Really? I didn't think anyone seriously supported a draft at all. I was just referring to the oddball extremist who wants Imperial America.
Liberals...supporting the draft...the only way I can even try to understand that is that they want to ruin the military...
Especially during the Iraq war a BUNCH of Democratic politicians and their pundits tried to bring back the draft in hopes it would 'end the war'.
They saw the anti-war/anti-draft movement of the 60s and 70's as a model. Charlie Rangle tried to get it through the House a couple times if I remember correctly.
Amaya wrote:I don't think a single American posting in this thread said anything that would remotely suggest that they were a supporter of compulsory military service. The only people who would even want that are warhawks who are in a position of power that would allow them to avoid serving. I'm pretty sure active duty servicemen and women don't want the military to be full of unmotivated shitbags pulled off the street.
Don't mind the flag you see to your left. I am still an american and I support compulsory military service. see previous post for reason.
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
Really? What were they?
Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.
Show me when a populace is willing to fight a war, and I'll show you a country that we need to be worried about. No country should ever want to fight a war. They should be prepared for it when it is necessary, but it doesn't mean they should want it to happen.
As I'm currently serving in an all volunteer military, I would like to see it stay as such. I already work with a bunch of people who don't want to be here, I don't need anymore. You will get better service from those who want to, then those who are forced to.
There are times when it may be necessary, in the event of another World War, or something along those lines, but I honestly feel that there are very few threats that America will face in the near future that could require a new draft.
Henners91 wrote:I think young people would benefit from military-style discipline and levelling. It might also give one a 'stake' in society and an understanding of citizenship.
Military service doesn't necessarily have to be in a frontline capacity; there could be military labour, relief services, ambulances, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote:
AustonT wrote:
daedalus wrote:I thought the last time we implemented a draft we learned that there were few advantages to fighting a war using people who didn't want to be there.
Really? What were they?
Uh, well, I guess it gives you bullet-catchers. At least for a while. Though if your populace is unwilling to fight a war, that's a pretty solid indication you probably shouldn't be involved in it.
Civilians turn against wars the moment the body bags come home.
I totally agree. Show me where to vote; and I'll do my part to ensure it happens tomorrow.
Alot of America's youth may actually find a purpose in life (meatshield?) . Besides; can you imagine the lively facebook posts then?
*GIguy: Stupid drill sgt made me crawl thru mud and scream today. Lame.
SgtPain411: Private, did you forget about my "friend" status? NOW PUSH UNTIL I GET TIRED!!!
gregor_xenos wrote:I totally agree. Show me where to vote; and I'll do my part to ensure it happens tomorrow.
Alot of America's youth may actually find a purpose in life (meatshield?) . Besides; can you imagine the lively facebook posts then?
*GIguy: Stupid drill sgt made me crawl thru mud and scream today. Lame.
SgtPain411: Private, did you forget about my "friend" status? NOW PUSH UNTIL I GET TIRED!!!
Which is exactly why NO ONE that I work with is on my friends list, even if I am actually friends with them.
Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.
I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.
Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.
I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.
I should have known nationalistic bravado would come into this eventually. There is no evidence that any Scandinavian military is any form superior to the military of the UK and the USA. I will grant that Scandinavian forces probably have higher physical standards or at least the average serviceman/woman is in a better shape.
Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.
I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.
Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.
I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.
Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion. They perform to the level one would commonly expect of part time and compulsory troops. Like the National Guard.
However Danish officers are required to spend an enlistment before entering their academy so they are generally both better trained and more capable than their American counterparts that came directly to officer producing programs from the civilian population.
I would be on board with everyone having to do a year as part of the national guard of their state. Then stop deploying the national guard overseas. Fill some sandbags in flood zones, dig some ditches, learn how to use a weapon properly, use a goddamned map and compass, learn a few survival basics and some discipline. Not go to actual war unless it's y'know, an actual war.
Bromsy wrote:I would be on board with everyone having to do a year as part of the national guard of their state. Then stop deploying the national guard overseas. Fill some sandbags in flood zones, dig some ditches, learn how to use a weapon properly, use a goddamned map and compass, learn a few survival basics and some discipline. Not go to actual war unless it's y'know, an actual war.
Do you have any idea how expensive that is? I think sending a recruit through boot alone is upwards of $40,000 and the longest one of those is only 13 weeks.
AustonT wrote:Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion..
And what part did you disagree with? That scandinavians are better educated? That they place better in military competitions?(probably not conscripted personel per se) That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?
US/UK troops are indeed a better fighting force, but i never questioned that.
Bromsy wrote:I would be on board with everyone having to do a year as part of the national guard of their state. Then stop deploying the national guard overseas. Fill some sandbags in flood zones, dig some ditches, learn how to use a weapon properly, use a goddamned map and compass, learn a few survival basics and some discipline. Not go to actual war unless it's y'know, an actual war.
Do you have any idea how expensive that is? I think sending a recruit through boot alone is upwards of $40,000 and the longest one of those is only 13 weeks.
Yup, this is of course only a small part of my multilayered plan, another major aspect of which would be returning us to a natural, pillaging based economy.
AustonT wrote:Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion..
And what part did you disagree with? That scandinavians are better educated? That they place better in military competitions?(probably not conscripted personel per se) That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?
US/UK troops are indeed a better fighting force, but i never questioned that.
Could this more professional image have anything to do with not being involved in engagements or being under a microscope as the world's lone superpower?
AustonT wrote:Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion..
And what part did you disagree with? That scandinavians are better educated? That they place better in military competitions?(probably not conscripted personel per se) That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?
US/UK troops are indeed a better fighting force, but i never questioned that.
I'm not sure what that last one is supposed to mean.
It means American soldiers are Imperial pigdogs that enjoy raping and pillaging.
Spoiler:
That was sarcasm for anyone who missed it. In case some of you haven't noticed, America is one, if not the most, diverse nation(s) on the planet. It is only natural the occasional instances of war crimes will occur and they do not reflect on the nation or military as a whole.
AustonT wrote:Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion..
And what part did you disagree with? That scandinavians are better educated? That they place better in military competitions?(probably not conscripted personel per se) That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?
US/UK troops are indeed a better fighting force, but i never questioned that.
Could this more professional image have anything to do with not being involved in engagements or being under a microscope as the world's lone superpower?
It seems you know nothing about the subject, why even respond?
Sweden, Denmark and Norway are part of the ISAF force in afghanistan and have had their share of engagements and deaths.
And i dont see how the US "being" a superpower has any inpact on solders professional image in combat. Take a look at some videos on the subject.
Amaya wrote:In addition to the fact that conscription would probably decrease average unit effectiveness there is the issue of even implementing the draft.
What about mandatory civil service (which can be substituted by military service, but is not required) then?
It depends on the nation. I think it would be difficult to do in the US and it might simply be cost prohibitive. It's nice ideal, but I don't know if it's realistic.
Here's the thing about mandatory military service: generally, the only nations that employ this method have low populations, and therefore require a conscription program in order to maintain a standing army at all times. The USA has a large enough population that it does not need to do this in order to maintain its military size. In fact, I highly doubt that the USA even has the infrastructure in place to be able to expand its military to the size that would be created with a mandatory conscription program, unless it began an ever-increasing series of invasions and occupations.
AustonT wrote:Having met my equivilent members in said militaries and many more at conferences and excersizes allow me to disabuse you of that notion..
And what part did you disagree with? That scandinavians are better educated? That they place better in military competitions?(probably not conscripted personel per se) That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?
US/UK troops are indeed a better fighting force, but i never questioned that.
ROFL!
Bwahahaha
who who
he he
ho ho.
Oh...you were serious.
We can start by identifying who are actually conscripted in the Scandinavian armed forces. The Danes mandatory conscription is for 4 months and doesn't involve any special training or branch, I met two at a conference a few years ago; one was there to take notes and start and stop a tape recorder, the other was basically a porter. Superior training and professionalism indeed.
The Swedes have virtually become an all volunteer force and plan to become fully volunteer by law by the close of the decade. The joint missions we ran with them were dismal failures and demonstrated a lack of proper training and familiarity with their equipment.
And the Norwegians: ahh the only one of the bunch really fielding any conscripts, with such poor results they were asked and agreed to no longer send conscripts to ISAF by late 2010. Norway spends boatloads of money and time training their professional soldiers, which almost makes up for the part time roustabout conscripts that bring their overall readiness to "ok" in the Home Guard and are rarely seen outside of their country. I've never met one in person.
so when you said:
I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
I answered, they are exactly what they sound like ill-trained and un-professional. If you would like to talk about the majority serving military of the mentioned nations you'll be talking about volunteer soldiers and your original point is immediately invalid. I didn't comment at all about thier education as it turns out we didn't discuss the finer points of literature or calculus in the course of training, talking about training, executing, or lecturing about unmanned systems and manned unmanned teaming.
Your second argument:
That they place better in military competitions?
Citation; and yet again not conscripts
That they certinaly have a more professional image during engagements?
Combat engagements? Oh you meant those things Scandinavian conscripts never go to.
Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
What... the Hell... are you talking about?
The USA is not very good at just about anything anymore, except for one very, very specific thing: kicking the ass of anyone they want to.
And don't even bother mentioning the dismal efforts in Afghanistan- because that is a result of a low level of commitment. If the US decided to focus its wartime might, it would take the combined forces of the entire EU to beat them back.
Do not undervalue the product of 70 years of the military-industrial complex hard at work.
Amaya wrote:In addition to the fact that conscription would probably decrease average unit effectiveness there is the issue of even implementing the draft.
What about mandatory civil service (which can be substituted by military service, but is not required) then?
Again, WAY too expensive and with no real purpose. You would be looking at hiring and training millions of people and then paying them for a year of full time employment (assuming the training time doen;t make up part of that year) in various gov't agencies. States and local gov't can't afford this so even if they provide some of the make work, the Feds fund it. And what would the benefit be? Someone gets to say 'I served!'. Sorry, it really is just not workable in the US. Our population is way too large to think that EVERY citizen should spend a year as a gov't employee.
If you want to look at funding such programs... Someone previously stated it costs 40k to train a soldier - a stealth bomber costs 2.5bn (not to mention upkeep). For the cost of one bomber you could train 62,500 soldiers
SilverMK2 wrote:If you want to look at funding such programs... Someone previously stated it costs 40k to train a soldier - a stealth bomber costs 2.5bn (not to mention upkeep). For the cost of one bomber you could train 62,500 soldiers
B2: Program cost US$44.75 billion (through 2004)
Unit cost $737 million (1997 cost for each aircraft)
$1.07 billion (today with inflation)
And again, we are talking about gov't paying the salaries of 10s of millions of people each year to fill civil servant positions that don't currently exist so that folks can say 'I served!'.
Read further down - gives you figures for actual cost of over 2bn.
And as for creating jobs - is that such a bad thing? What is your unemployment rate these days?
Use the comp service guys to resurface roads, lay broadband cable, repair flood defences, etc... All those things that improve general life and never seem to get funded properly. Also imparts various skills - building, engineering, electrics, etc.
Hell, I'm sure the fire and rescue service and even the police could use more radio operators even... If there is a gap and you have a body with the skills or the ability to fill it, shove them in it.
Amaya wrote:In addition to the fact that conscription would probably decrease average unit effectiveness there is the issue of even implementing the draft.
What about mandatory civil service (which can be substituted by military service, but is not required) then?
Again, WAY too expensive and with no real purpose. You would be looking at hiring and training millions of people and then paying them for a year of full time employment (assuming the training time doen;t make up part of that year) in various gov't agencies. States and local gov't can't afford this so even if they provide some of the make work, the Feds fund it. And what would the benefit be? Someone gets to say 'I served!'. Sorry, it really is just not workable in the US. Our population is way too large to think that EVERY citizen should spend a year as a gov't employee.
That's why i personally think it would need to be more like 2-4 years (as the average entry enlistment contract is for military), but should also include senatorial time (as this would necessarily clean out the scum that lives there "professionally" now). I think that while it would be more expensive, it would be a "better" expense to me to pay salary of conscripted government workers (as it were) than it is to pay welfare for the lazy and inept.
Obviously I am wishlisting, since I hate what is going on in washington and think the d-bags who are there, have been there for far too long and need replacing.
SilverMK2 wrote:Read further down - gives you figures for actual cost of over 2bn.
And as for creating jobs - is that such a bad thing? What is your unemployment rate these days?
Use the comp service guys to resurface roads, lay broadband cable, repair flood defences, etc... All those things that improve general life and never seem to get funded properly. Also imparts various skills - building, engineering, electrics, etc.
Hell, I'm sure the fire and rescue service and even the police could use more radio operators even... If there is a gap and you have a body with the skills or the ability to fill it, shove them in it.
It's not actually creating any jobs though. Those jobs already exist. And you mention projects with no funding, well where do you expect the funding to come from to pay these cumpolsory workers?
Working as a government contractor, one of the biggest issues we have filling slots isn't a lack of applicants or lack of funds, it's a lack of people who are both qualified AND able to pass a simple background check. Not long ago we needed to hire one more data monkey. Not hard work, easy training, good pay. We turned away over 90% of applicants because their credit was in the toilet; they'd never pass ever a NACI clearance which is required for government work.
You also mention police radio operators. My sister does that right now, and she had to pass a far more stringent background check than I did. She's also had several paycuts in a row because states are running out of money. It's not just an issue of "fill the slot"; it's not nearly as easy as you try to make it sound.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:That's why i personally think it would need to be more like 2-4 years (as the average entry enlistment contract is for military), but should also include senatorial time (as this would necessarily clean out the scum that lives there "professionally" now). I think that while it would be more expensive, it would be a "better" expense to me to pay salary of conscripted government workers (as it were) than it is to pay welfare for the lazy and inept.
I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you. You want to force the "lazy and inept" into government positions, so you don't have to pay welfare?
And I'm not sure what you mean by "senatorial time", because your post reads like you'd do away with senatorial elections in favor of "conscripted" senators... (which would basically take our congress from "bad and inactive" like it is not, and put it down at the "Jerry Springer Show" level...)
Assuming the funding is in place for having conscripts 'as is' - what do you do with them to make use of the money their training, food, housing etc represents? Put them to work doing jobs that need doing.
The usa is lagging behind on a number of public works type programs (probably because you all want to live so far apart! ) - things such as broadband/high speed data cables, paved roads and repairs etc... You have the people, you have the capacity to move them 1000's of miles to where they are needed - get something valuable out of them since you are paying to train and keep them for their term of service.
With things that need clearance for - you mention high rejection rates, but if everyone within a certain age range is available for the job, can be moved to where the job is and trained to do it (and consequently have skills and qualifications when they finish their service), the failed applicant ratio is less of an issue.
There are hundreds of ways compulsory service guys can be put to use to benefit them and society as a whole and justify paying them in the first place.
CptJake wrote:
B2: Program cost US$44.75 billion (through 2004)
Unit cost $737 million (1997 cost for each aircraft)
$1.07 billion (today with inflation)
The total program cost, which includes development, engineering and testing, averaged $2.1 billion per aircraft in 1997.[3]
CptJake wrote:
And again, we are talking about gov't paying the salaries of 10s of millions of people each year to fill civil servant positions that don't currently exist so that folks can say 'I served!'.
There's no particular reason that they couldn't be existential positions. There are, presently 22.5 million full and part time government employees if you include federal, state, and local government.
Additionally, there's no particular reason that mandatory service would need to fully supplant one's normal activities. It could easily take the form of part time service in a manner similar to the National Guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.
Either way the government is still paying for the completion of the project.
Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.
I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
But yes, i agree its dependant on what conscript you look at, or what part of the world.
Wait you even have a military? Automatic swedish meatball launchers don't count.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Amaya wrote:In addition to the fact that conscription would probably decrease average unit effectiveness there is the issue of even implementing the draft.
What about mandatory civil service (which can be substituted by military service, but is not required) then?
My income taxes insure I'm already consripted five months out of the year. thats quite enough thank you.
CptJake wrote:
B2: Program cost US$44.75 billion (through 2004)
Unit cost $737 million (1997 cost for each aircraft)
$1.07 billion (today with inflation)
The total program cost, which includes development, engineering and testing, averaged $2.1 billion per aircraft in 1997.[3]
CptJake wrote:
And again, we are talking about gov't paying the salaries of 10s of millions of people each year to fill civil servant positions that don't currently exist so that folks can say 'I served!'.
There's no particular reason that they couldn't be existential positions. There are, presently 22.5 million full and part time government employees if you include federal, state, and local government.
Additionally, there's no particular reason that mandatory service would need to fully supplant one's normal activities. It could easily take the form of part time service in a manner similar to the National Guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.
Either way the government is still paying for the completion of the project.
Just call it a internship, so you don't have to pay em. Just give em room and board.
Indeed - it is the same reason bus companies constantly cut services out to the sticks - they cost them money that they don't make back serving the route. Sometimes it takes a NFP organisation or other public funded body to put their hands in their pocket to ensure that services are provided to everyone, even if it is not particularly "profitable".
Why is so much of the country still not using broadband or better? Because the private sector lacks either the will, the legal rights, or the resources to improve the nation's infrastructure.
Why is so much of the country still not using broadband or better? Because the private sector lacks either the will, the legal rights, or the resources to improve the nation's infrastructure.
Actually, no.
The reason is because the cost to the company is higher than the potential return on their investment.
Why is so much of the country still not using broadband or better? Because the private sector lacks either the will, the legal rights, or the resources to improve the nation's infrastructure.
Actually, no.
The reason is because the cost to the company is higher than the potential return on their investment.
Making money is failure. Also made bigger something that makes no sense if you are trying to blame private businesses.
I will concede this point, the private sector perceives there to be a reduced profit in public goods (roads, public buses, etc) and allow the government to handle the creation and maintenance of such goods.
Oftentimes the government will maintain them to the benefit of private industry anyway, which is half the point (a form of economic stimulus if you will).
streamdragon wrote:
I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you. You want to force the "lazy and inept" into government positions, so you don't have to pay welfare?
And I'm not sure what you mean by "senatorial time", because your post reads like you'd do away with senatorial elections in favor of "conscripted" senators... (which would basically take our congress from "bad and inactive" like it is not, and put it down at the "Jerry Springer Show" level...)
What most of those on welfare really need is work.. If you are paying salary, that means that someone is making a contribution to society (whether it is valuable or not is debatable) and the more salaries you are paying, the fewer welfare recipients there are, in general.
My thoughts on the "senatorial time" is that, one problem with American politics, is the so called "career politicians".. guys and gals have gone to school, or spent their 4 years military, then gone and spent 30 in Washington, I think that because of people like that, combined with other things have created a system where nothing really gets done. To solve that, I suggest that there be a cap on one's time in Washington, just like we do the Pres. Were it up to me to create a "conscripted senate" as you think, I definitely wouldn't take most of America. However, just like the military scores you as a person in several categories through the ASVAB, I think that, should a person be allowed to defer their fictitious "conscripted government service" til after college (just as we do with selective services and the draft), we could then create a pool from each state and locality of qualified people to serve in either the senates or house of representatives.. those people would then have the option to either be put on a voting ballot, or serve elsewhere within the system. This way you don't, or at least shouldn't get "jerry springer" but you also don't get the media circus that is today's Washington.
I'm sorry if the two separate ideas were not adequately explained for you (or anyone), but for me, they really were two completely separate ideas for an "American compulsory service" system that everyone was talking about.
Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
What... the Hell... are you talking about?
The USA is not very good at just about anything anymore, except for one very, very specific thing: kicking the ass of anyone they want to.
And don't even bother mentioning the dismal efforts in Afghanistan- because that is a result of a low level of commitment. If the US decided to focus its wartime might, it would take the combined forces of the entire EU to beat them back.
Do not undervalue the product of 70 years of the military-industrial complex hard at work.
How about reading before replying? I never said they couldn't kick ass or that the US military were a inferior warmachine.
Frazzled wrote:
Wait you even have a military? Automatic swedish meatball launchers don't count. .
They don't count becuase we ate them. And i bet you they tasted better than your american counterpart.
Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.
What... the Hell... are you talking about?
The USA is not very good at just about anything anymore, except for one very, very specific thing: kicking the ass of anyone they want to.
And don't even bother mentioning the dismal efforts in Afghanistan- because that is a result of a low level of commitment. If the US decided to focus its wartime might, it would take the combined forces of the entire EU to beat them back.
Do not undervalue the product of 70 years of the military-industrial complex hard at work.
How about reading before replying? I never said they couldn't kick ass or that the US military were a inferior warmachine.
Oh, I read your post. Here, let me break it down for you:
Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education....
The education of a soldier revolves around combat effectiveness. It will consist of everything from chain of command to survival scenarios to combat tactics and equipment proficiency. Soldiers do not need to know that King Charles I died in 1649, as it has no relevance to their job. While Swedish soldiers may be more academically educated (an assumption; I honestly do not know), I doubt that the conscripts will be better educated as soldiers than will the volunteers from the US.
Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in ... training...
This is just stupid, by virtue that a conscript will not be joining the ranks of any elite units; whereas you not only have to be a volunteer, but effectively live for the job in order to become a part of any elite specialization in the US military. What you have essentially done here is claim that a Swedish grunt is better trained than a US Navy Seal.
Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in ... professionalism.
Again -like education- I suspect that you do not understand what the job of a professional soldier is. If you want to think of it as a customer service job, then fine. Just remember that it is the one service job where the customer is always wrong. A professional soldier is someone who follows orders to the letter and without fail. I can just about promise you that a draftee will never do this better than someone dedicated enough to volunteer of their own accord.
So if you look at my initial point, you'll find that when you add these factors up, you get a well-oiled war machine. One that has been refining itself in pursuit of perfection for 70 years. That roughly translates to my phrasing of "kicking the ass of anyone they want to". You cannot do so without excelling at the above three factors (but not only those three) without being superior to everyone across the board.
azazel the cat wrote:Again -like education- I suspect that you do not understand what the job of a professional soldier is. If you want to think of it as a customer service job, then fine. Just remember that it is the one service job where the customer is always wrong. A professional soldier is someone who follows orders to the letter and without fail. I can just about promise you that a draftee will never do this better than someone dedicated enough to volunteer of their own accord.
So if you look at my initial point, you'll find that when you add these factors up, you get a well-oiled war machine. One that has been refining itself in pursuit of perfection for 70 years. That roughly translates to my phrasing of "kicking the ass of anyone they want to". You cannot do so without excelling at the above three factors (but not only those three) without being superior to everyone across the board.
Not bad, BUT I want to point out that we do indeed teach and train inititative and critical thinking, laws of war, ROE and how to apply all those under stressful conditions, so sometimes being professional does mean following intent vice 'orders to the letter'.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:To solve that, I suggest that there be a cap on one's time in Washington, just like we do the Pres.
Term limits haven't been effective in a number of other democratic systems, largely because they tend to increase the power of political parties relative to individual politicians, and the government itself. Basically you end up with a system where both the politician, and the party, know that time in office is limited and so plans must be made for one's subsequent career. Generally this means using the larger party as a support network, one which is fully capable of blacklisting you and ruining your future career.
Moreover, the absence of a pervasive incumbency advantage tends to increase the influence of money interests due to the greater dependency on renewed campaign contribution relationships.
I was more or less done with my reply when my browser died so the answers will be short.
azazel the cat wrote:
The education of a soldier revolves around combat effectiveness. It will consist of everything from chain of command to survival scenarios to combat tactics and equipment proficiency. Soldiers do not need to know that King Charles I died in 1649, as it has no relevance to their job. While Swedish soldiers may be more academically educated (an assumption; I honestly do not know), I doubt that the conscripts will be better educated as soldiers than will the volunteers from the US.
I mean general education only. Im not familiar with what education volunteers get.
azazel the cat wrote:
This is just stupid, by virtue that a conscript will not be joining the ranks of any elite units; whereas you not only have to be a volunteer, but effectively live for the job in order to become a part of any elite specialization in the US military. What you have essentially done here is claim that a Swedish grunt is better trained than a US Navy Seal.
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
azazel the cat wrote:
This is just stupid, by virtue that a conscript will not be joining the ranks of any elite units; whereas you not only have to be a volunteer, but effectively live for the job in order to become a part of any elite specialization in the US military. What you have essentially done here is claim that a Swedish grunt is better trained than a US Navy Seal.
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
I can't imagine how good a conscripted unit with next to nothing in the way of combat experience can outperform US Navy Seals. I can feasibly see the special forces of other nations outperforming the Seals, but their special forces will invariably have some sort of combat experience. Aside from Libya (and I don't think Sweden had troops on the ground there), the only conflict that Sweden had any part in was the the pacification of the Congo in the 60s.
Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
Citation needed.
It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.
Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
Citation needed.
It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.
if we had a rematch, I'm sure the waist lines of America would prevail today
Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
Citation needed.
It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone beat the US in an eating contest? Because I can only think of one country where eating is a sport broadcast on ESPN2...
Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
Citation needed.
No citation likely (ok maybe rescue, but hey thats the Coast Guard.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.
Citation needed.
It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone beat the US in an eating contest? Because I can only think of one country where eating is a sport broadcast on ESPN2...
indeed, the only people that can out eat Americans are skinny little Japanese guys who really like hot dogs.
Bla_Ze wrote:A citation would be a waste, since i doubt you can read swedish
But it was a multisport competition and Seal team 5 from San Diego placed third.
And no, pancake eating was not an event in this competition.
So you're saing some draftees beat volunteers who spend their whole lives swimming through surf, killing people, eating food that would make a billygoat puke, but you're not going to site a source at all?
So you're saing some draftees beat volunteers who spend their whole lives swimming through surf, killing people, eating food that would make a billygoat puke, but you're not going to site a source at all?
What was the competition, competitive loafing?
Want me to bring your hearing trumped grampa? It was a multisport competition not killing competition, otherwise im sure our humble costal rangers would have lost. (Navy seals on exhange have commented that the training was even harder than your US equivalent)
So you're saing some draftees beat volunteers who spend their whole lives swimming through surf, killing people, eating food that would make a billygoat puke, but you're not going to site a source at all?
What was the competition, competitive loafing?
Want me to bring your hearing trumped grampa? It was a multisport competition not killing competition, otherwise im sure our humble costal rangers would have lost. (Navy seals on exhange have commented that the training was even harder than your US equivalent)
I remain unimpressed, that is not a military competition.
HOLLEDAUER Pokal, Internationaler Schießwettbewerb, or the Canadian Army Trophy Competition.
What you linked is Superfrog in Sweden. Good on those two guys for winning, it's still an adventure race.
I remain unimpressed, that is not a military competition.
HOLLEDAUER Pokal, Internationaler Schießwettbewerb, or the Canadian Army Trophy Competition.
What you linked is Superfrog in Sweden. Good on those two guys for winning, it's still an adventure race.
We are talking about conscripts here, there is a limit to the kind of event they would be allowed to participate in. I would think any other competitions like erna is done by experienced solders.
Private_Joker wrote:If you want badass look at the SAS.
The only non-US forces that I would honestly guess will be better trained than the US elite units would be Russian Spetznaz, and that is only by virtue of a few facts:
1) It was developed at a time when Russia's military might was parallel to that of the USA.
2) They have the population to ensure that only the top 0.001% of soldiers can make the cut.
3) They have been almost constantly involved in military actions thanks to the tumultuous state of affairs that has plagued the Balkans since forever.
4) The US will limit some training elements because they recognize at least a few human rights. Russia, however, long ago ran all out of 's to give.
Private_Joker wrote:If you want badass look at the SAS.
The only non-US forces that I would honestly guess will be better trained than the US elite units would be Russian Spetznaz, and that is only by virtue of a few facts:
1) It was developed at a time when Russia's military might was parallel to that of the USA.
2) They have the population to ensure that only the top 0.001% of soldiers can make the cut.
3) They have been almost constantly involved in military actions thanks to the tumultuous state of affairs that has plagued the Balkans since forever.
4) The US will limit some training elements because they recognize at least a few human rights. Russia, however, long ago ran all out of 's to give.
Of course, in this day and age, many of the most skilled Spetznaz don't stay Spetznaz for long, they become mob enforcers for the ridiculous pay raise.
Private_Joker wrote:If you want badass look at the SAS.
The only non-US forces that I would honestly guess will be better trained than the US elite units would be Russian Spetznaz, and that is only by virtue of a few facts:
1) It was developed at a time when Russia's military might was parallel to that of the USA.
2) They have the population to ensure that only the top 0.001% of soldiers can make the cut.
3) They have been almost constantly involved in military actions thanks to the tumultuous state of affairs that has plagued the Balkans since forever.
4) The US will limit some training elements because they recognize at least a few human rights. Russia, however, long ago ran all out of 's to give.
I do know that the Danish were given high praise for the role of their special forces in Afghanistan. I'm fairly certain they didn't have any conscripts in the country though.
Private_Joker wrote:If you want badass look at the SAS.
The only non-US forces that I would honestly guess will be better trained than the US elite units would be Russian Spetznaz
GSG 9, Shayetet 13, and the SAS units trained and operated under MI-6 are arguably better trained than top tier US forces, (sorry Matty I just don't know that much about the RM). Spetznatz is actually a very broad term for a large group of warriors in the Russian Federation that encompass internal police, army, navy, and the FSBs special foces. They CAN be trained to a tier one level, or they can be trained to an elite infantry role, or to a SWAT/AT role...which means they run the gamut of good to great to epic.
I do know that the Danish were given high praise for the role of their special forces in Afghanistan. I'm fairly certain they didn't have any conscripts in the country though.
Danish conscripts do not see combat, its more of an introductory period of 4 months after which they may volunteer and be trained into a branch and job.
AustonT wrote:GSG 9, Shayetet 13, and the SAS units trained and operated under MI-6 are arguably better trained than top tier US forces, (sorry Matty I just don't know that much about the RM). Spetznatz is actually a very broad term for a large group of warriors in the Russian Federation that encompass internal police, army, navy, and the FSBs special foces. They CAN be trained to a tier one level, or they can be trained to an elite infantry role, or to a SWAT/AT role...which means they run the gamut of good to great to epic.
It is arguable, both ways.
Something else folks don't consider is NO Tier 1 unit is worth much without support elements. From the 160th SOAR to the 24th Special Ops Wing and a slew of other elements, when it comes to a fully integrated package capable of being delivered to and operating almost anywhere, it is going to be very difficult to argue that US SOCOM and specifically JSOC units can be beat.
's to give.