The Law Conscription/National Service

[Taylor]

That's right, sending young Australian guys to die in Vietnam against their will proved pretty unpopular. 200,000 people marched against Conscription in 1970, and with population increase that's the equivalent of half a million today, biggest in Australian history.

Point being unless there are foreign troops literally coming out of landing craft onto Aussie beaches then there's zero chance of conscription ever proving to be politically popular.

I have no kids but an attempt to re-introduce conscription would be one of the few issues I would gladly join a protest against. It's abhorrent.

The government failed with two votes for introducing conscription, it would never be publicly supported, you're right

 

[schneebly111]

The government failed with two votes for introducing conscription, it would never be publicly supported, you're right

All the way back in 1917. Interesting as the votes were seen as a pseudo referendum on support for WW1. Anyone opposed was labelled a coward or traitor as usual with the media mostly being in support.

By the 60s the government just passed it into law without going to referendum and Holt announced arbitrarily that conscripts were off to Vietnam. 200 died there.

The Save Our Sons anti conscription movement was formed (I would gladly join such an organisation if they tried again) and was again labelled as traitors, commies and cowards by the establishment and the press.

It's a shame that a name like Joyce Golgerth (founder of Save Our Sons) has been forgotten and isn't remembered as one of our national heroes whereas scumbags like Ben Roberts Smith have been deified.

Gloves off • Inside Story

Beguiled by familiar photos, have we forgotten one of the first anti–Vietnam war groups?

insidestory.org.au

 

[Taylor]

All the way back in 1917. Interesting as the votes were seen as a pseudo referendum on support for WW1. Anyone opposed was labelled a coward or traitor as usual with the media mostly being in support.

By the 60s the government just passed it into law without going to referendum and Holt announced arbitrarily that conscripts were off to Vietnam. 200 died there.

The Save Our Sons anti conscription movement was formed (I would gladly join such an organisation if they tried again) and was again labelled as traitors, commies and cowards by the establishment and the press.

It's a shame that a name like Joyce Golgerth (founder of Save Our Sons) has been forgotten and isn't remembered as one of our national heroes whereas scumbags like Ben Roberts Smith have been deified.

Gloves off • Inside Story

Beguiled by familiar photos, have we forgotten one of the first anti–Vietnam war groups?

insidestory.org.au

After Vietnam showed every home what war actually looked like I don't think there will ever be a vote FOR total war, short of an event that angers a nation enough to warrant uncontrolled revenge.

 

[Freomaniac]

An article today on News.com.au suggested that in the event of an imminent war conscription may be utilised to bolster defence numbers.
Without resorting to fearmongering, in what circumstances, if any, would you support or accept the reintroduction of conscription?
Given the connected social media world we live in at the start of 2024 would it even be possible to implement conscription at any meaningful level in Australia? If so, what do you think would be some of the drawbacks of utilising conscription that would need to be overcome?
Is there a way to encourage substantially more voluntary service to bolster numbers in the defence force?

Given the possibility of geopolitical conflict Australia has obviously been taking a number of steps to better defend itself (including the recent purchasing of 72 F35 fighters, the AUKUS pact and provision of nuclear-powered submarines and the implementation of the recommendations in the Defence Strategic Review to name a few). Are there are alternatives to conscription to enable Australia to be better prepared for future conflicts in the region (with the priority being to defend our borders)?

Interested in your thoughts.

Unlikely....

This generation is smart but also soft.

 

[rank and file]

Unlikely....

This generation is smart but also soft.

Easy game,play station crew at war with drone mob.
See where gameboy Elon lands.

 

[Freomaniac]

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

they would love our land.

 

[Freomaniac]

Maybe the farmland and its produce but I don't think they want to take over the country and live here.

yeah they would.

I look at Saudi Arabia for example. Their land was like 90 to 95 percent desert. So only 5-10 percent of actual land that was good for farming.

Saudi Arabia decided to turn some of that desert into grass. Mind you the saudi people needed money to do it. So the oil came in handy.

I am sure China Could turn a lot of desert land in to green land used to grow veggies.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

If it followed previous examples it's all men under 35 and all single men under 45.

Why not women?

 

[faible]

Of course Taylor is interested in the conscription thread

 

[CM86]

What I think is most interesting is that the public response to conscription would depend on which Government implements it, and how the media reports on it.


If a Labor Government did it, the majority of Australians would oppose it. Progressives and conservatives alike.
If a Coalition Government did it, the majority of progressive Australians would still oppose it, while the majority of conservative Australians would probably support it.

 

[Taylor]

Why not women?

The average man is an order of magnitude better solider than the average woman.

Government action tends to be broad and general because getting too detailed is expensive.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

The average man is an order of magnitude better solider than the average woman.

Government action tends to be broad and general because getting too detailed is expensive.

How sexist, i thought women could do anything a man could?

 

[Taylor]

How sexist, i thought women could do anything a man could?

Nobody with a functioning brain thinks women and men are equal in terms of fighting or other physical competition. Our society isn't based on violence, so equality works right up until it comes time to defend it.

 

[schneebly111]

Unlikely....

This generation is smart but also soft.

Why do you speak of being “soft” as being a negative?

If their generation is “soft” that means they are empathetic, peaceful, kind and more likely to not fall for a hate campaign against some perceived “enemy” the government wants us to hate to fool them into joining the military.

What’s being “tough”? Being a brainless bootlicker who is easily conned into hating people they’ve never had any quarrel with.

Give me “soft” over “tough“ any day please

 

[Taylor]

Why do you speak of being “soft” as being a negative?

If their generation is “soft” that means they are empathetic, peaceful, kind and more likely to not fall for a hate campaign against some perceived “enemy” the government wants us to hate to fool them into joining the military.

What’s being “tough”? Being a brainless bootlicker who is easily conned into hating people they’ve never had any quarrel with.

Give me “soft” over “tough“ any day please

I completely agree with you.

As long as those considerate, empathetic and peaceful men will bring the violence when and if the time comes to stand between what they care about and the hypothetical threat on the horizon.

 

[Episode IV]

Why do you speak of being “soft” as being a negative?

If their generation is “soft” that means they are empathetic, peaceful, kind and more likely to not fall for a hate campaign against some perceived “enemy” the government wants us to hate to fool them into joining the military.

What’s being “tough”? Being a brainless bootlicker who is easily conned into hating people they’ve never had any quarrel with.

Give me “soft” over “tough“ any day please

I've been leafing through my dictionary and I can't find any definitions which match yours for either of those words.

 

[Episode IV]

Conscription in Australia has always been young men and boys but we've not had it or national service since 1972

Women were not allowed to hold combat roles until 2013

There's no reason to think if conscription was brought back that women would be excluded or that they'd be interested in 45 year old men

What?
There is a painfully obvious reason women aren't generally conscripted other than in the most extreme circumstances - and even those instances are few and far between. That reason is that after a war is over, particularly when it has been a devastating one, win or lose, society needs to rebuild.
Most modern societies can stand the loss of a significant percentage of men - it takes far longer to recover from the loss of the same number of women.

In the event of a country going to war which includes women conscripts, there is the probability that you might have to actually use them (in direct combat roles), which no sane nation wants to do if it doesn't have to.
There is a big difference between allowing women to participate in combat roles, and introducing conscription for women.

You could mount an argument that the general idea of "military preparedness" might allow for the conscription of women, but Australia is not in that position at all - there are only a few nations around the world who ever have been, and women being conscripted under those circumstances has always involved extreme circumstances and a ever-present threat. Even then, they were rarely (if ever) used in direct combat roles.
To advance the idea as the result of some idealistic notion of equality, though... abhorrent.

 

[Episode IV]

I completely agree with you.

As long as those considerate, empathetic and peaceful men will bring the violence when and if the time comes to stand between what they care about and the hypothetical threat on the horizon.

One can only hope they'll still know how.

In the past, there were reasons that the legends of Australian soldiers punching above their weight were justifiable, even among conscripts. The UTS and subsidized rifle club memberships being examples of aspects of early 20th century Australian urban society contributing to the effectiveness of its military before the war even started. Light Horse regiments had more volunteers than they could handle.

In modern times, those advantages have all but vanished, and the only thing giving the Australian military some edge is expenditure, technology, and arguably superior training as a result of experience.
Also, the role of the Australian military on a global scale, with reference to our current alliances and our role within those alliances in the event of conflict, changes the purpose and role of conscripts considerably.

Another less tangible factor coming into play here might be the concept of "softness" someone offered above. I'd prefer to use the term "resilience" in the context of this thread. My opinion is that Australians are significantly less resilient than they once were, for a variety of reasons.
The conscripts of 50 or more years ago were probably far more resilient and combat ready than the Australians of today.

I covered this in an earlier post, I think.

 

[Episode IV]

All the way back in 1917. Interesting as the votes were seen as a pseudo referendum on support for WW1.

Really. I think you'll find it was a bit more complicated than that.
Perhaps you'll post whatever sources you have for that opinion?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I could fly the planes, drop the bombs, land the helicopters that drop of the warriors but when the time comes to deal out and more importantly take a punch, that's a man's world.

Careful, you'll be labeled a misogynist with this statement.