[flagged]
> National service is the system of compulsory or voluntary government service, usually military service. Conscription is mandatory national service. The term national service comes from the United Kingdom's National Service Act 1939.
I'm pretty sure you're trying to caricature a type of people, but when you're this blatant about it you basically become a caricature of yourself.
I can ensure you this is not some sort of parody
This is not very different from being forced to pay taxes.
The happiest country on the planet is Finland, which is even more gung-ho about conscription than Sweden. The nordic countries, Israel, and Switzerland all have conscription and are also all in the top 10 happiest countries. (Side note: I think it'd be dangerous to abolish conscription in Finland. The Finns might get so over-happy that they start talking to strangers at bus stops and doing other things signifying that the end is near.)
As far as the quality of the soldiers, I will give you that there are many countries where poorly trained conscripts are of very low quality.
But as far as the nordic countries go, I'd say that the conscript soldiers in general are motivated and perform well in combat.
Swedish UN troops composed of conscript soldiers who later volunteer for a 6 month UN mission have performed very well compared to "professional" UN troops from other countries. For instance, read up on "shootbat" (BA01) in Bosnia 1993-1994.
I have heard many stories from Swedish ex-UN soldiers about how the Swedish battalions can solve pretty much any problem in the field since they are composed of people who work as auto mechanics, heavy equipment operators, electricians, civil engineers, computer programmers, etc in their civilian lives. At the same time, the "professional" soldiers from other countries get stuck as soon as there's a problem just a little bit outside of their army training.
However, I was speaking somewhat more narrowly of active defensive combat situations. I think this is pretty different from the peacetime conscription practiced by Finland, Sweden, etc. I was speaking of the group that did not volunteer when given impetus to do so.
Let's say that Finland were invaded by Russia. First, the currently-conscripted Finnish army would defend. Secondly, any additional volunteers from the populace that would like to help defend their homeland, will also help defend. Thirdly, if these first two groups are insufficient, additional conscription will be performed against the remaining population.
My claim is that on average, the third group will perform more poorly than the second group. I don't mean to compare either to the first group.
Finland has a population of 5.5 million people. They have almost 900 000 soldiers including reserves in their armed forces that they can mobilize in case of war.
When war breaks out, they have already trained as many people as possible. There aren't many left to conscript at that point.
It was the same for Sweden during the cold war. The armed forces would have numbered almost a million soldiers out of a population of 8 million. On top of that, an additional 1.5 million swedes were part of the total defence forces.
> My claim is that on average, the third group will perform more poorly than the second group. I don't mean to compare either to the first group.
The thinking in Sweden has always been that conscription leads to a democratization of the army, stronger popular support for the armed forces, and a stronger will to defend the country.
So sure, if the country is invaded, the people who have not served before and refuse to do so even after an invasion will not be as good soldiers.
It is not 1940 something.
Perhaps the specific example I gave of Finland does not hold, but I think the spirit of my example still does.
First profi army becomes senior force, that trains whomever wants to hold a gun (second army). There is never political support to draft third army (like everyone). Remains of first army flee after government collapses. Political regime changes.
I was conscripted, I fired 20 bullets over 12 months, I get more practise over weekend of paintball! Rest was just bullying, cleaning toilets and scraping potatoes. They would not even let me drive a truck, because I was too "unreliable"!
> If it's so great, why they have to force people into it?
The fact that people are forced is not in opposition to the fact that they can still be motivated and capable once training is over.
> I was conscripted, I fired 20 bullets over 12 months. Rest was just bullying, cleaning toilets and scraping potatoes. They would not even let me drive a truck, because I was too "unreliable"!
Conscription sucked for you, sure. If everyone in that army receives that level of training, I will concede that it will be neither motivated nor capable.
But we have plenty of examples where countries with conscription armies have performed well in armed conflicts.
So the concept of conscription is not obviously ineffective. It depends on the implementation.
But while you will find absolutely no support for slavery in the Nordic countries, there is 100.0% support for conscription in the Swedish parliament.
The people forced into conscription in Sweden later end up voting for parties who support it. I doubt you'll find the same thing with many ex-slaves, right?
The "huge opposition" that you keep bringing up just doesn't exist here.
My "practical" opposition to slavery is that I will never ever become slave again, no matter if waht, if I am forced into it!
Uhh, what? Did you just make that up?
Funny how both the left party and the green party are for forced conscription in Sweden if there's such a strong opposition against it. You'd think they could get a lot of votes by campaigning against conscription? Which they don't...
So not just Uncle Tom, but also total misogynistic! Please do not ignore women, they are human beings and they matter too!
This mystery applies to most everything, not just conscription.
In Sweden, I've never seen any serious opposition to conscription on ethical grounds. My impression is that it is the same in the other nordic countries.
No, not for 100% of the voters. But you can still say that the issue is "well agreed upon".
If there was a "huge opposition to conscription because it is slavery", then one or more of the political parties in Sweden would be opposed to it. And those parties would get a majority of the votes if people thought that the issue was the most important one.
Instead there is no political party against conscription in Sweden. Not even the left party or the green party, which really surprised me since they are normally against that sort of thing.
There is also no political debate about conscription in Sweden on ethical grounds.
Compare this with the monarchy and the king in Sweden. Here, there is definitely a vocal opposition, and several large parties are against it. It is far less "well agreed upon" than conscription, and it is harder to say that people voting for a party that is not against the monarchy actually agree with that.
What about 5%?
>But you can still say that the issue is "well agreed upon".
You can say whatever you like, but whether what one says is true is an important but often ~uncomfortable detail.
> If there was a "huge opposition to conscription because it is slavery", then one or more of the political parties in Sweden would be opposed to it.
Reality necessarily resolves this way, without exception? And, this is knowable, and known, necessarily? Incorrect belief is not possible here?
> There is also no political debate about conscription in Sweden on ethical grounds.
Are you describing your knowledge of mainstream debate, or the fact of the matter of all debate in existence, however "serious" it appears (aka: is)?
> Compare this with the monarchy and the king in Sweden.
The thing itself, or some memetic cultural narrative of it, like what one reads in the newspaper or on internet forums?
If the former: how?
If the latter: why? To what end?
Gov needs it to be "voluntary", or else they could be sued for compensations.
If there is a war, do not sign it!
Gov makes the law. They could just as easily make a law saying "no compensation shall ever be payable from anything todo with National Service"