[mszcz]

I've always thought of those compulsory military training schemes as a little silly.

You have a bunch of unmotivated people that don't want to be there. You have to house them, feed them, train them for what, 3, 6, 12 months? Seems like a lot of money. How long will that training last for? How soon will you need retraining to be even considered marginally useful? Isn't it better to spend that money on professional soldiers?

[dcsommer]

You're right that it is not necessarily efficient from a military effectiveness perspective. I see it as also an educational tool/investment. As other comments have pointed out, this helps the populace internalize their responsibities in war (affecting voting), might help instill social cohesion, and yes also provides a baseline military competency in the populace in the worst case scenario (total war).

[crote]

How is it an "educational tool/investment" when you are removing 18-year-olds from their education or job for several months? And "instill social cohesion" sounds a lot like "brainwashing" to me.

Those arguments don't have anything to do with conscription. You could just as well achieve the same with mandatory education, or mandatory pick-trash-up-in-the-forests.

[NovemberWhiskey]

>removing 18-year-olds from their education or job for several months?

They're getting education in a different set of skills, and additional life experiences; some of which may actually be transferrable outside the military context.

I don't see the same objection to students deciding to take a gap-year to backpack around Southeast Asia.

[dcsommer]

I don't claim it's the only way to promote social cohesion. A year of mandatory trash pickup would probably do that too. I don't understand the comment about brainwashing. Any form of public education, including mandatory trash pickup, can have that word thrown around.

[akudha]

I don’t like compulsory military service. That said, with the rise of obesity and other health problems, this might make a small difference in getting people (men?) take their health a bit more seriously, once they leave the service.

I am just guessing of course

[dauertewigkeit]

For small countries it makes more sense than having a purely professional army, because in case of need, you very likely have to mobilize the whole male population.

[nordsieck]

> You have a bunch of unmotivated people that don't want to be there. You have to house them, feed them, train them for what, 3, 6, 12 months? Seems like a lot of money. How long will that training last for? How soon will you need retraining to be even considered marginally useful? Isn't it better to spend that money on professional soldiers?

It is a lot of money. National defense of some sort is also, mostly necessary for independent countries.

As for why conscription vs professional soldiers, it depends on the threat model. If you're Finland and want to be able to hold off Russia, a professional army isn't going to cut it. Mass mobilization is the only thing that has a chance of working.

Of course, you could always argue that that's what allies are for. But the problem with allies is that they don't always come through when and how you want them to.

[mszcz]

> it depends on the threat model. If you're Finland

Yes, I agree, in cases like this, sure. In general however I think that compulsory training is more wasteful than usual.

> Of course, you could always argue that that's what allies are for. But the problem with allies is that they don't always come through when and how you want them to.

Being Polish that rings true. Also, if every ally in an alliance thinks that…

[XorNot]

"Abundance leads to wastefulness".

To my mind mandatory service doesn't help at all - the German military for example needs more soldiers, but more importantly needs to be run competently by the government since it's had well-known problems for years at this point (any analysis on what would happen if they were actually suddenly needed would find they'd be pretty likely to look an awful lot like the Russians in terms of equipment availability, but for entirely stupid reasons - "just in time" equipment procurement).

[ethbr0]

The best use of mandatory service is long-calendar-time training. E.g. basic proficiency, vocabulary, and doctrinal knowledge

Refreshing is a helluva lot easier than training, when you're simultaneously fighting an active conflict.

[crote]

It makes sense when there is a credible threat to the country. And if one exists, conscripts tend to be at least somewhat motivated. If you live right next to Russia, learning how to use a gun might be really useful one day.

But most of Europe doesn't have a credible threat.