The Law Conscription/National Service

[Malifice]

Yeah Good luck with young people today, it would fail dismally.
Even if they wanted to, and the majority certainly would not...
They dont have what it takes.

You served in the military did you?

 

[rank and file]

Yeah Good luck with young people today, it would fail dismally.
Even if they wanted to, and the majority certainly would not...
They dont have what it takes.

Not sure about that.
There will be nowhere to hide once Mr Goose has his drone on your tail.

 

[burge13]

Yeah Good luck with young people today, it would fail dismally.
Even if they wanted to, and the majority certainly would not...
They dont have what it takes.

Would you fight for this country?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Would you fight for this country?

what a question?

Australia is a bellicose country and with the clear exception of WW 2 has often been on the wrong side of wars.

For example I actively opposed conscription and Oz lap dog role in the Vietnam War.

 

[Sphynx]

I hate this. We spend billion upon billion on defense force and waste god knows how much on subs and s**t

How many resources does it really need...

lol.

People whine about the cost of Australian made products.

Well we shut down most of our manufacturing plants and this is the result.

You either buy international equipment at 200-300% markups or build it yourself, it’s not cheap to setup world class manufacturing facilities.

People think we have those capabilities, but we don’t. We have a completely non existent nuclear industry in this country at the moment, that alone isn’t cheap to create.

Defence manufacturing is a huge industry and one that could provide a hell of a lot of benefit for hundreds of thousands of people in this country.


We haven’t properly invested in sovereign manufacturing in 70 years, you have to bite the bullet to do it properly.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Interesting conversation.

As human kind makes advances in technology in leaps and bounds, more and more the 'boots on the ground' is becoming less of a requirement.

The PLA has the largest personnel militarily (if I am correct).

What's of more relevance IMO is the global military ranking, China is 3rd and we're 16th.

We're very high up and I'm willing to bet we have much less 'personnel' than those that we rank above.

2025 Military Strength Ranking

Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.

www.globalfirepower.com

'Manpower' on the ground is becoming more and more obsolete as 'wars' are increasingly fought behind keyboards. Ok not completely yet but it is imminent.

This is without even mentioning our closest military ally is the global policeman as well as other very powerful western allies, it's not as if Xi or Vlad decided to attempt to invade Australia we'd be left high and dry.

For more than a century now we've been those allies attack dog, there is no known universe that they'd just abandon us.

So depending on the type of conflict and when, is conscription the most 'required' element? Wagering not so.

 

[Episode IV]

It's really the only just position in a war, defending the ground under the homes of your family and community.

Just or not, it is a strategically unwise position to take.

While the "home ground" advantage might be of tactical significance, the more strategic view would be to have your troops fight on someone else's turf - even if that someone else is an ally.
Economically and socially speaking, the result of a war being fought within your own boundaries is devastating. This has been proven historically time and again, and is happening right now in other parts of the world. It would seem folly to invite it as a result of principle.

Yes, the "home defence only" ideology is certainly a just position to take. Pragmatism, however, would dictate that the "just" position to take is not always the best one when considering the effects of that position on your own people.




*edit - hang on. Did I misread your intent with regard to that line?

 

[Engimal v3]

I wouldn't fight for Australia. I don't really like doing stuff.

 

[Gough]

I wouldn't fight for Australia. I don't really like doing stuff.

I'd never wear the uniform on account of people might try to kill me if I do.

 

[Episode IV]

A while ago, I remember reading something from someone reviewing the role of conscripts in conflicts throughout history, saying that career soldiers do not want them because you cannot guarantee they'll hold a line or have your back. They don't want to be there in the same way as a career soldier is, someone who chose to do it; their motivation is personal survival rather than whatever they were sent to war to do.

In 1939, the Menzies government announced compulsory military service after the outbreak of World War II. Initially, it was a strictly Home Defence force (important to note here that parts of Papua and New Guinea were considered "Australian Territory" at the time). It was the Curtin Labor government that expanded the deployment availability of the CMF to include the entire South West Pacific military zone.
Australia never sent CMF troops to Africa or Europe, but there are reasons for that which extend beyond legal limitations.

Initially, perceptions were as you have described, with the "Chocos" or "Koalas" being derided as being sub-par for pretty much exactly those reasons. Later events disproved that though, with the under-equipped and less well trained CMF forces acquitting themselves quite well under pressure, with reference to the Kokoda Trail and at Milne Bay in particular (Milne Bay being the first time Japanese forces were defeated on land during World War 2).
"Perceptions" are often only that, and ideology often evaporates quickly under certain circumstances.

I'd imagine the situation was similar during the Vietnam war.
11 of the men of 6RAR killed at Long Tan were conscripts. So were a few of those killed at Coral/Balmoral, another desperate fight involving Australian troops often overshadowed by the story of Long Tan.
I don't think there are too many who have read accounts of those battles would be inclined to consider those men to be ineffective conscripts.

Just with regard to the last part, I'd say that the motivation of "personal survival" might be a motivational issue prior to the outbreak of hostilities, it is also the very same reason conscripted soldiers are capable of fighting quite well when the sht hits the fan, as it were. There is the personal survival of not wanting to fight in the first place, and then there is the personal survival of having an enemy in your face who wants to do you in.

As a consequence, if you spend time training them some percentage of them won't want to learn to shoot. Some of them will never fire a shot at an enemy, because throughout history 75 percent of soldiers do not engage with the enemy; do you really want the person next to you in that situation to be a person who didn't listen in basic because they didn't want to be there? They'll know how to take cover, use your supplies and eat your food when you need to ration.

You'd have to talk to someone else about methods of recruiting more soldiers. Don't think conscription's the answer, and even if it was the only way I don't know how effective it'd be. There're stories of WW1-2 of mass surrenders of conscripted soldiers.

There are stories of mass surrenders of professional soldiers too. There are other factors influencing the decision of soldiers to surrender, them being conscripts or not is only one.

I actually remember bringing up the "75%" subject on this very forum, a long time ago. I vaguely remember mentioning a figure of 1 in 8 American soldiers during World War II choosing to directly engage, which is even more indicative. Those studies have directly influenced modern warfare, with reference to the combined-arms "engage at a distance" (where possible) policies of modern American armies originating during World War I as a result of American experience in earlier conflicts.
There are accounts of German soldiers holding the fighting ability of the American soldiers in contempt during World War II, and then there are further accounts of others (particularly officers) having a huge regard for the combat ability of American forces as a whole.

I think the social fabric of the nation involved with using conscripted troops is a factor as well.
The Australian soldier during World War I was very highly regarded by just about everyone. Those were not conscripts, the referendums having been defeated (narrowly) twice, as Taylor has noted.
However, that reputation for efficiency was gained despite disciplinary concerns, which "professional" soldiers were not commonly subject to.

It should be mentioned here that Australia instituted the Universal Training Scheme in 1911. All eligible males (British subjects who were not exempted) between the ages of 11(!) and 26 were required to register for military training for potential service within Australia and its territories.
Many of those who volunteered for overseas service, particularly in the early years of World War I, were men who had been "conscripted" into those programs. The Junior cadets were not formally disbanded until 1922. In other words, the Australians of the AIF had in fact a greater exposure to at least rudimentary military training prior to the outbreak of the war, something the other allied nations did not have. In short, many of them had been handling rifles and were introduced to military forms and structure as children (although not always as a result of the UTS, obviously, when one considers the national character and social nature of Australia as a whole at the time).

Point being that whether or not a soldier is a conscript is only one factor among quite a few which determine whether or not a soldier (and by extension, an army) is an effective one, and also that preparedness for a potential conflict is more than just worthy of consideration.



There is, of course, another factor which comes to mind when discussing the relative effectiveness of conscription in the modern world, with particular reference to Australia and other Western nations. I'm actually quote loathe to bring it up, for what should be fairly obvious reasons.
That factor is the social and political character of the nation at any given time.

The "Australian" conscript during both world wars was most commonly of British descent, identified as Australian or British, and had an allegiance to the country (and Empire) which I'd say is simply not present at the same levels today. It was highly possible to use conscripts overseas with only a modicum of resistance when the enemy was Japanese, or Vietnamese. Ideological objections would have been present, but not to the same degree. I wonder, for example, if the conscription referendum would have been so hotly contested during World War I, and if it might not have swung marginally the other way, if the enemy had been someone other than another European nation.
We know that it was not during World War II, and it is indicative that it was a Labor government which widened the scope of the CMF to include the Pacific region (but not, notably, Europe - or even to fighting the Germans and Italians in Africa).

The question of who the enemy is must also be taken into consideration, and given the multicultural aims (and reality) of modern Australia, I do not think that any attempt to revive it would be successful if the aim was to have Australian conscripts involved in overseas wars. I don't even think that much of the population would be interested at all in military service at home, and certainly would not if conscription was the means by which that was achieved.
The difficulty modern Western nations have in enlisting even professional soldiers is not in question, and they are very aware that the primary consideration of the modern Western soldier is often rooted in the advantages service confers, with the enticements including adequate pay and the possibility of education and experience. "Service to King and Country" isn't quite the incentive it once was.

It's not necessarily the allegiance to Australia that needs to be brought into question, but rather the nature and comparative level of that allegiance given the multiple ethnicities and religions which now form the fabric of Australian society, and their historical backgrounds.

 

[Freomaniac]

I wouldn't fight for Australia. I don't really like doing stuff.

You would fight for North Melbourne! That's a worthy cause. I sure as hell ferball , The Warlord and Outtatym would do the same thing!

 

[kickazz]

I'm open minded on this - and I think National Service can have a much broader meaning than traditionally it has.

It could well be mutually beneficial for the country and the participant. I have a friend from Singapore who says it was really good for him. If nothing else it imbues a sense of duty to colleagues and others - might be a great antidote to the narcissism epidemic we are experiencing.

It could be an alternative to having to financially pay off student debt. That concept brings with it some concerning class divide issues, sure - but it could be a good alternative.

It need not be military style - you can serve the country by many other means, including environmentally, socially, etc. Plant trees. Drive the elderly to hospital/doctor appointments. Teach English to immigrants. Heaps of possibilities.

Even with the military/defence side of things - it again need not be 'soldier' type skills. Increasingly the threats to this country are cyber threats - perhaps some STEM internships would be good options for some people.

I mentioned earlier mutual benefit. Skills gained is part of that, but you could also do things like more affordable housing/loans etc for those who choose (if it is optional) to participate.

 

[Captivating]

Given Trump is giving NATO the finger and saying that unless they up their defence spending, they can eff off in terms of expecting US support, we'll need to up our spending to 3-5% of GDP - currently at 2%. That means finding another $25b - $75b annually.

 

[Malifice]

Australia is a bellicose country and with the clear exception of WW 2 has often been on the wrong side of wars.

We should have allied with the Germans in WW1, or the Commies in Korea and Vietnam?

 

[Mofra]

We should have allied with the Germans in WW1, or the Commies in Korea and Vietnam?

Solomon Islands, Timor, etc etc

 

[Malifice]

I don't think there are too many who have read accounts of those battles would be inclined to consider those men to be ineffective conscripts.

As a former professional soldier, I assure you that Soldiers do not want to fight alongside conscripts who don't want to be there.

At least reservists want to be there, its just their skills are rarely up to par (through no fault of their own).

Having even a single bloke in a unit, who isn't there by choice, is far more often than not a major pain in the ass for the unit to manage.

 

[ferball]

The point of the article wasn't conscription used as a weapon to send to overseas conflicts.

It was as a way to bolster national security for a home defence which may be required in the next decade/s. In the same way it's implemented in Israel and Sth Korea. It's certainly the most heightened risk of the last 70 years in that sense.

I'm yet to read an alternative to "resolve things diplomatically" by the naive far left.

What if we are required to actually defend the mainland ourselves, for the first time in our history?

This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, people love to complain about things, the country has an abundance of natural resources, however, our military is incredibly under resourced in comparison to just about every federally funded industry at the moment, to defend any of the countries interests if required.

Ukraine is a terrible comparison, we aren't anywhere near as well prepared as Ukraine was for a major conflict.

Building nukes would be better than conscripting people.

 

[ferball]

Unlike most countries we’re a highly geographically isolated island.

There’s no chance of just rolling some tanks over the border like in Ukraine.

Unless you can land an invading army south of Brisbane its pretty much ****ed.

 

[Sphynx]

Unless you can land an invading army south of Brisbane its pretty much ****ed.

The PLA Navy could blockade Australia without breaking a sweat.

Then we are ****ed given the huge reliance on imports….

 

[Malifice]

Unless you can land an invading army south of Brisbane its pretty much ****ed.

Without allies, suppressing our air force and Navy wouldn't take too long for a country like China.

We'd have other regional powers (Indonesia etc) sorted on our own. They don't have the logistics to project, deploy and sustain a force onto mainland Australia.

China beats us with sheer weight of numbers.

Of course, that's where the Seppos come in.

 

[ferball]

The PLA Navy could blockade Australia without breaking a sweat.

Then we are ****ed given the huge reliance on imports….

How would conscription help then?

 

[ferball]

Without allies, suppressing our air force and Navy wouldn't take too long for a country like China.

We'd have other regional powers (Indonesia etc) sorted on our own. They don't have the logistics to project, deploy and sustain a force onto mainland Australia.

China beats us with sheer weight of numbers.

Of course, that's where the Seppos come in.

why would China bother tho. We already sell them our resources for sweet FA. Besides that we have nothing they want.

 

[Episode IV]

As a former professional soldier, I assure you that Soldiers do not want to fight alongside conscripts who don't want to be there.

At least reservists want to be there, its just their skills are rarely up to par (through no fault of their own).

Having even a single bloke in a unit, who isn't there by choice, is far more often than not a major pain in the ass for the unit to manage.

Never said they wouldn't, I talked about initial perceptions.
Surely you're not old enough to have actually served alongside conscripts in Australia, though? As far as I know the last would have been in Vietnam, with conscription ending in 1972.

Training standards have changed over the years, and so has the nature of the Australian soldier.
A part of the thrust of that post was that while in WW1 a conscript would have differed only a little in training and overall quality to a professional soldier, in World War two that had begun to change, by Vietnam the difference would have been significantly greater.

The difference would be so great now as to be almost insurmountable.

 

[Freomaniac]

why would China bother tho. We already sell them our resources for sweet FA. Besides that we have nothing they want.

They wouldn't mind our land.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Given Trump is giving NATO the finger and saying that unless they up their defence spending, they can eff off in terms of expecting US support, we'll need to up our spending to 3-5% of GDP - currently at 2%. That means finding another $25b - $75b annually.

Tell Trump to gagf

costa rica has no army. It was abolished in 1949. Relative to its neighbours, the CR economy has prospered and it has invested in health and education.

Bizarre to see Big Footy is truly a Big Cooker School.