[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1.jpg (98 KB, 1300x955)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
Let's discuss this. Both have pros and cons.

Professional army
Pros
>Motivated - all soldiers want to be there
>Trad - drafted arnies are pretty new, historically speaking
>Talented - you don't join unless you have the knack for it
Cons
>Small - the amount of willing soldiers is usually pretty small in any population
>Potentially disloyal - since they're basically a warrior class isolated from civilians, they won't have much loyality to the civililan-led state
>Expensive - They're only soldiers and will never lead a normal civilian life, so they're a net loss economically in peace

Drafted army
Pros
>Numerous - Everyone, or almost everyone, will serve. This is a huge number of people, obviously.
>Cheap - They're only a net loss during their service after which they simply return to their civilian lives and work normally
>Integrated into society - "Citizens in uniform" are not separated from normal society

Cons
>Long training - most soldiers will not have experience with shooting, hardships or even violence and will need lengthy training to be brought up to scratch
>Unmotivated - they're gonna half-ass everything they can, after all they're not there voluntarily
>Weak - frankly, the forces will include tons of people who aren't supposed to be in fighting roles, which will weaken the military in general

If you had full control over your country, which would you choose? Keep in mind that both systems have good and bad examples throughout history, (eg. Germany's drafted Bundeswehr being the strongest conventional NATO army during the Cold War) so it's not a clear cut case.

Also keep in mind that a certain amount of militarism in a society can blur the lines, as in the US during WW2, in 19th century Prussia, in Nazi Germany, in the USSR etc.

IMO I would prefer a professional army because I think quality will in most cases trump quantity.
>>
>>522043138
Your pro pro point is bullsbit, mercs are there only for the monies and occasional warcrimemaxxing, they no talenged they want moneybjust by existing, they definitely do not want to fight to death


Enjoy your upcoming draft, jurgen. Being a year in army is great for the soft zoomyzoomies, some of them might even become actually men if proper prussian trad methods are used dor discipline

It is so funny that all foreigners I've met who never were in the army were whiny little bitches
>>
>>522043138
You'll still have to draft people in the event of actual war. Profissional armies are only good for chasing farmers with AKs in another Middle Eastern country.
>>
>>522046175
That is the essence of mercing around, the point is to make monies and maybe commit some warcrimerinos on the side. Mercs be mercings, simple as.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.