Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bla_Ze wrote:

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?

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

Amaya wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

Simply because they have an extremely small presence and role does not mean you can compare them with US forces.

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.

Amaya wrote:Simply because they have an extremely small presence and role does not mean you can compare them with US forces.

And what does this have to do with anything? How does the size of either connect with this discussion?

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

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?

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)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

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!'.

I submit that is not a good thing.

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.

CptJake wrote:

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?

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.

No, let a private business do that.

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

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.

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

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.

Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.

Private businesses have failed.

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.

Private businesses have failed.

All of them? When?

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.

Private businesses have failed.

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".

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.

Private businesses have failed.

All of them? When?

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.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.

Private businesses have failed.

All of them? When?

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.

azazel the cat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:No, let a private business do that.

Private businesses have failed.

All of them? When?

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.

AustonT wrote:Making money is failure. Also made bigger something that makes no sense if you are trying to blame private businesses.

I'm not. I'm saying government can and should do things that the private industry can't or won't.

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.