In World War 2 basically every major military was majority conscripted, but nowadays only desperate and incompetent nations use conscription, so when did that change occur?
>>65145981Money and Technology>MoneyIt's much more fiscally responsible to invest in professional soldiers than to train someone from nothing to something for them only to serve maybe 4 years and 1 deployment.>TechnologyAdvances in technology have led to less people dying in wars overall.Professional Soldiers and Volunteers are much more motivated than people conscripted into a military.
There hasn't been a massive war requiring that much meat for the grinder. Those countries that find themselves in such wars do still resort to conscription.
>>65145981> nowadays only desperate and incompetent nations use conscriptionYour starting point is invalid because it’s essentially only Western Europe + US and Canada that are strictly volunteer. And even then some countries within still use conscripts (Finland comes immediately to mind)
>>65146108>because it’s essentially only Western Europe + US and Canada that are strictly volunteer....yes, and?The point still stands that only desperate and incompetent nations use it. Most militarily competent nations just happen to be western.
Drafts were done but men for the most part went along with it because there was a genuine bond between citizens’ duty and a country in time of need. That bond pretty much vanished in the Vietnam war. At that point and governments were not acting (overtly) in the interests of its citizens but for other agendas. Wars became gay lawfair and drafted soldiers were not enthusiastic. Kind of interesting I heard that WW2 Americans were starting to get a little mutinous around September 1944 realizing it’s all fake and gay but Germany’s obsession with counter attacks kept everyone begrudgingly at the wheel till the war finished.
>>65145981>but nowadays only desperate and incompetent nations use conscription, so when did that change occur?All volunteer armies only last as long as the nations military is at peace or engaged in wars of choice. Put any major nation up against a peer adversary for a prolonged period and conscription will follow. That said, an eager and content force of well trained and equipped volunteers is a much better starting point for going into war than a natin that practices peacetime conscription.
>>65146211>Put any major nation up against a peer adversary for a prolonged period and conscription will follow.We've seen minor nations go up against major nations for several years without ever having to implement conscription
>>65145990The other factor often overlooked is that in addition to that, mobilisation takes hands off the tools, wheels and farms of a population. That crippling loss of skilled manpower can last up to a generation or more until replacements come up of age to learn, earn and contribute to society again.
>>65145981Vietnam basically killed conscription, bunch of men getting sent to some jungle hellhole for basically zero reason soured everyone's opinion on the draft, now any mention of it would be political suicide and more likely to start a civil war in the nation.
>>65145981With a conscript army you need a justifiable casus belli and the approval of the general population. With a volunteer army you need far less, because nobody's being forced to go, so the general population is much more tolerant of unpopular wars abroad.
>>65145981>so when did that change occur?For the US, after Vietnam even though it still technically exists, however there's no need for the US to implement it due to the amount of volunteers. For the rest of the West after the end of the Cold War for most nations. The vast majority of the youth in Western Europe have no desire to serve in the military
>>65145981After Vietnam, the general idea was that they would gut the welfare state, pull all of the old programs apart and use propaganda to get people to believe that they were both unnecessary and extravagant, mainly by saying a bunch of blacks were using them, and then when that naturally created an underclass of permanently poor people, you give those benefits back, but only if they joined the military. Thus the US got a massive military entirely made up of "Volunteers" whose only hope for a better life was by submitting themselves to labor and humiliation for the state. Then, of course, a coalition of retards entered the world who had drunk the koolaid from birth and who believed that government spending is somehow inherently bad, and not only bad when it's wasteful, so now all of the military's benefits are being slashed too, and we're seeing a "Recruitment Crisis" because all of the broke fuckers who would have joined up for the benefits are now seeing that they won't even actually be getting those, so they might as well do drugs and rob people instead.
>>65145990>only to serve maybe 4 years and 1 deploymentSo most of the US military up to E-4 then.
>>65146504there's a reason the E-4 mafia is so prevelant
>>65146211>than a natin that practices peacetime conscriptionI think the idea is that your conscripts will take over the rear guard duties so that you can allocate more professional soldiers to the front lines
>>65145981Cold War. Even in WW2 most of the fighting was just infantry vs Infantry. During the Cold War we finally consolidated our industrial technology and started moving more men and supplies by truck than foot or hoof. Suddenly, it made more sense to put a man to work making said trucks rather than sticking a rifle in his hands and hoping he gets a shot off before getting killed. We also started seeing body armor become a thing. Korean War saw Infantry Flak Jackets become standard which meant we could actually spend money to make infantry tougher to kill. This contributed to the catastrophic K/D ratio in favor of the veteran US soldiers. During Vietnam we also saw some Catastrophic breakdowns in discipline among conscripted soldiers but less so for volunteers. It became obvious that career soldiers are simply better motivated and with Vietnam being so unpopular that the idea of an all-volunteer military became politically attractive. Nixon formed the Gates Commission and the Gates Commission figured out you didn't need conscription for a decent military. 3 years later, the US draft was dead.
>>65145981>but nowadays only desperate and incompetent nations use conscription>sauce: OPs hot takes straight from its prolapsed, AIDS ridden assholedesperate nations like korea, finland, israel, ukraine etc. In homogenous nation states its a great force multiplier and really effective if the host society is of high quality human material. And when major powers with good human capital utilize it you get the Wehrmacht of 80 years ago nearly establishing a german empire going from the french border to the volga river valley. Even then they were only even held back and eventually defeated because of an invulnerable factory protected by two gigantic oceans spamming everybody to death Discount human apes like pajeetia or chinkistan or pidorstan or burgerland it, of course, degenerates into a pointless pseudo-prison and needs to be replaced with """"professional"""" (mercenary) army to get even the most basic shit done due to the atrocious dysgenic trash that is your average mystery meat private
>>65146112>The point still stands that only desperate and incompetent nations use it.Why was the US so desperate before 1973? Or was it incompetence? You sure use a lot of emotionally charged words. Are you a woman?
>>65145981The official historical turning point was the Gates Commission after the Vietnam war, but that was just when it became public and bureaucratic news. The reason conscription began was the musket era's crazy k:d ratios. Soldiers died so much and needed so little skill the cap on war became the number of troops a general could hire, because even the best general would lose too many per battle to complete a war otherwise.WW2 era combined arms was the beginning of the end and 1980s-1990s guided weapons made the change technologically permanent.
>>65147264>desperate nations like korea, finland, israel, ukraine etc.Yes
>>65147264>>65147333It's because of size. You need a critical minimum mass of troops to fight a war. Big nations can get that with volunteers. Small ones can't.
>>65147346Do you think a small nation can be competent? Lmao.
>>65145981It’s a Catch-22They’ll deny people conscription if they’re not in the right head space or slightly insane, but I bet they’ll gladly draft some shitlib or tankie who would glass their unit and defect to the enemy
>>65147270The US was fairly incompetent before, yes.
There's only two types of nations that use conscriptions, nations that don't care about the quality of their troops (Russia, North Korea, Israel, etc.) and nations that don't think they'll ever actually have to fight in a war (Finland, Korea, etc.)Every nation that actually knows they'll be fighting in wars and wants to be effective in those wars uses volunteer armies (USA, UK, Ukrainie, France, etc.)
>>65147490that competent army of yours hasn't won a war since ww2..
>>65147498>anime picture>retarded takeiconic duo
>>65147498one of the most confidently incorrect posts I've seen in a while, nice
>>65147517>Brown education
>>65145981because ww2 was a total war with the entire societies mobilized to support it. the whole point of a world war is that they're desperate.
>>65147522>>65147531And yet, you have no counter-argument.
>>65147543lol, lmao even>Every nation that actually knows they'll be fighting in wars and wants to be effective in those wars uses volunteer armies (USA, UK, Ukrainie, France, etc.)1. Ukraine uses conscription. They're filled with volunteers too on account of being a country fighting an existential threat to their survival, but they also use a huge amount of conscripts, which is how they're able to field hundreds of thousands of armed personnel.2. In the UK and France, active conversations are being had about reintroducing conscription specifically BECAUSE they don't think their small volunteer forces are sufficient>nations that don't care about the quality of their troops (Russia, North Korea, Israel, etc.)I am not a fan of Israel or their government but putting them in the same bucket as russia and north korea implies you've got severe brain damage>ations that don't think they'll ever actually have to fight in a war (Finland, Korea, etc.)you choose to list two nations which specifically do think they're going to have to fight in a war, and have done so constantly for the better part of the last century. The whole fucking reason both of them have conscription is specifically because they're constantly scared that they're going to have to fight. You are monumentally retarded if you don't understand this. Moreover your picrel is incredibly gay.
>>65147546I hate the US but this has to be bait
>>65147571I'm literally in my country's army right now (west europe NATO state), I've done a masters in security studies 90% of which was learning how to kill russia. Russia is 100% a threat and we are 100% actively planning on how to defend against them. Moreover denying that ukraine uses conscription is stupid, it's not evil that they do that, they're in an existential war of survival, conscription is a normal part of that. Unless you mean the whole "grabbing people off the street en masse forcefully" thing which is a russian psyop, but that's not what conscription actually looks like. You are a fucking moron.
>>65147575>Russia is 100% a threatThat's just you, buddy. Russia is a joke, and everybody knows that. Ukraine was one of the poorest countries in Europe before the invasion and Russia can't even handle them, anybody who thinks they'd stand a chance against any other European state is deluding themselves on purpose.>Moreover denying that ukraine uses conscription is stupidCan we see it? Because I've not met a single Ukrainian that's been conscripted, and I've talked to a lot of Ukrainians, I've never even seen a Ukrainian that knew someone who was conscripted. The whole Ukrainian conscription thing is just a Russian psyop made to make them look more desperate than they really are.
>>65147564US has not made an official declaration of war since 1942.It's just been "Police Actions" and "Congress authorized military operations" every since.
>>65147583if you wanna be technical then sure the US hasn't gone to war since then, but you'll also notice that that's more of a running theme of modern war which is everyone simultaneously pretending it isn't one when they're the one starting it. It's an optics thing. It doesn't change the underlying reality that the US has gone to war since WW2 multiple times.>>65147580I'm not trying to run defence for russia here. They're a disgusting, dysfunctional, irredeemable shitheap of a country, and a stain on humanity. But they're still capable of being a threat to europe. Their single greatest weapon to be fair currently is narrative + being ballsier than much of europe can be at times. That and having a friend in charge of the US. But they can also field quite a large army, they're rebuilding their armored reserves, and they will eventually try to go for europe unless a sufficient deterrent is set up. Mind you, they'd still lose regardless, europe will always beat russia, BUT if they try there will still be collateral damage before they are beaten, and that is unacceptable. The stronger we are, the less likely it is that they kill some of us before losing.
>>65147546What about the war on terror and the war on drugs?
>>65147607Mean for >>65147595
>>65147607>we can see the* names of the authors of that article.the two ukrainians?
>>65147598>war on terrorcoalition led conditional operation>war on drugsgovernment campaign against the production, distribution, and use of illegal drugs.
>>65145981If the krauts chimp out and raise 300+ fucking divisions you've got no choice yourself but to call all hands on deck. the scale of WW2 dwarfs anything seen since. the US army only has like 11 active divisions today, euro armies have maybe 1 or nearly 2 divisions worth, even the chinksects have like 13-14 divisions worth of manpower standing army.
>>65147655>If the krauts chimp out and raise 300+ fucking divisionsIf they do that 90% of those divisions are going to be garbage, and we've seen in Ukraine how a small, professional volunteer force can easily beat mass swarms of cheap conscripts.
>>65145990These + combat performance, conscripts generally suck and are best used in support roles.Lots of countries still have manditory service as a middle ground where they won't be used unless shit hits the fan but conscripts can be trained much faster if they have prior experiance.There is also the economic issues, lots of people don't want to be conscripted and will leave if they can, the easiest jobs to get a work visa for are high skill / high paying jobs meaning you lose those people first.Add to that the civil unrest if it's a war of aggression you are conscripting for, the civilian population will tollerate volunteers being sent to die over bullshit but not conscripts.
>>65147656People keep getting confused about Ukraine, Russia is still using a volunteer force while Ukraine is conscripting.Sure Russia is undergoing economic collapse and the only jobs are in the military but it's still technically volunteers.
>>65147678I know it's Russia so some are probably going into the grinder but aren't they meant to only be replacing enlisted on border duty?I have seen plenty of videos of Russian drunks that signed up being pushed to the front but not general conscripts.
>>65147790just ignore him. don't waste your time on engagement baiting retards.
>>65147790It's worth noting that not once for all of your biased sources have you been able to find a single Ukrainian whose actually been conscripted. If they existed, we'd be able to talk to them, but curiously any time you try to find one it's like they're nowhere to be found.
>>65147794True, I try to educate but some people prefer propaganda to reality.Some good news for the Ukies is they just did the math on their FPV teams and it's costing $882 per dead Russian.For $1.2T (1/6th the cost of the GWOT) they could drone every Russian man, woman and child.
>>65147802>it's costing $882 per dead Russian.damn, that's pretty cheap compared to an average artillery shell.
>>65147832It's the cheapest in modern warfare by a mile.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7XVZKbDIQ4
Population started to push back against being drafted for wars they felt were pointless. Might be wrong but I think it was colonial draft wars that helped sink the Portuguese dictatorship/junta.To shorthand it, a state's legitimacy and public willingness to put up with the state is a tripod on the legs of:1) Violent coercive force2) Materialistic benefits (Welfare or prosperity environment)3) Patriotism, be it sincere or bamboozled/hoodwinked/stupid rube'd.Volunteer military is 2 and 3, Conscription is 1 and 3 with a marginal amount of 2. At present outside of Eastern Europe where the patriotism is motivated by an existential threat of your rape-ape neighbor in Moscow, the West has problems with patriotism as the state isn't holding up its side of the bargain and budgetary crunching is risking the materialistic benefits. So if a state implements a draft and lacks 2 and 3 they have to rely on 1, and I question how effectively a Western democratic state can pull that off without screwing the pooch of the economic engines that don't like such a violent regime. You can see this with a shithole like Russia too in the immense anxiety about making Muscovites into Mobikites by violent coercion.In the past with information under control and less readily available, and nation-states being more cohesive and less special-economic-zones of readily exchangable peoples and cultures, states just can't hope to rely on WW1/2 tier mass conscription without mass unrest.Roughly the same reason reason Rome wasn't able to just flood the field with bodies in 210 AD the way it could in 210 BC.
>>65147802>For $1.2T (1/6th the cost of the GWOT) they could drone every Russian man, woman and child.Anon, my genocide backlog is full already, why do you tempt me so?
>>65146108>Other than USAYeah that's what he said. Desperate and incompetent militaries.
