NationStates

I am proposing a resolution to make military conscription for youths. This may seem authoritarian but this will help countries build up a strong military and also better security and stability throughout the regions which means low crime rates. I have made conscription compulsory and it seems to work pretty well.

Yes and No...
No because there are always going to be loopholes and people will search for them and they will find them. Also being in the military is hard and almost no country has enough people to train the young generation.
Yes because it also teaches discipline which many don't have. It would provide a national unity and strengthen the military by a lot from a utopic side.

Wrong forum, you need the General Assembly, not the Security Council. I've requested Moderation to move it.

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. In this forum, we draft international legislation that affects all GA member states. Well done for writing a draft here rather than immediately submitting, as this means feedback can be given. In this case, your draft unfortunately violates a few of the rules. Additionally, I suggest having a look at some passed resolutions for inspiration, as this is currently looking more like a suggestion than a piece of legislation.)

As a nation that had at one point in time used the idea of mandatory military service for all citizens, I would like to impart to you some things to consider. A few years ago there was a brief discussion on the subject of banning conscription. The Federation was of course against the idea, however that position had changed as member states who were more advanced offered their feedback.

Although yes, compulsory military service does boost your numbers as far as personnel it takes whatever budget you have and stretches it quite thin. Oh sure, you could increase your internal tax rate to boost it but before long you find yourself cutting other things for the sake of an all-encompassing military. In the short term it is possible, but over the long term not sustainable.

The next point to consider, and this one hit the Federation's ego where it hurt, compulsory service is practically slavery. It doesn't matter how well you treat your soldiers, how well you feed them, how well supplied they are, or how much you give them as far as benefits, it still amounts to involuntary servitude. I forget who exactly pointed it out, but their statement made the Federation strongly reconsider the stance; "A well fed slave is still a slave". Try as you might to find another term, it always comes back to the most undesirable but definitely accurate word; slave.

Given that, allow me to present you with a scenario. You have two military forces getting ready to go toe to toe, one is comprised of volunteers who are well-trained, more than adequately supplied, and most of all motivated to fight for their cause because they chose to. The opposing side is a mix of volunteers and conscripted individuals; although the numbers are there, the motivation to fight for the cause is not shared by everyone. On paper, numbers mean everything, but in practical exercise numbers are just part of a much larger equation where motivation is certainly a considerable factor.

Just a few things to think about.

OOC: As it was pointed out previous, excellent work posting your proposed idea here. That is a great step in proposing ideas, even if they may not work it gives you the opportunity to learn from other players.

The Sheika wrote:You have two military forces getting ready to go toe to toe, one is comprised of volunteers who are well-trained, more than adequately supplied, and most of all motivated to fight for their cause because they chose to. The opposing side is a mix of volunteers and conscripted individuals; although the numbers are there, the motivation to fight for the cause is not shared by everyone. On paper, numbers mean everything, but in practical exercise numbers are just part of a much larger equation where motivation is certainly a considerable factor.

OOC. On similar terms, the BEF fought the Germans at the start of the First world war: a highly trained, highly motivated, well-supplied expeditionary force of 50 thousand against the conscripted German army totalling over a million men. The BEF was simply overrun. If the BEF were there alone and not supported by the French 5th army, it would have been entirely surrounded and all men captured or killed.

"Ambassador, our nation ditched conscription a few decade ago simply because we don't get into enough wars anymore to warrant such a massive expenditure. Today, mechanization of the army and AI volunteers mean such an option is even less appealing. While it certainly instills discipline in the youth, overall it just hurts the nation as a whole, unless we get embroiled in some massive conflict."

Etiah wrote:this will help countries build up a strong military

"Ambassador, I do not see why increasing militarization ought to be an international priority. I am unconvinced as to why, in times of peace and prosperity, our young citizens should be conscripted into the military when most of them do not wish that."

OOC: I regard conscription as a violation of civil liberties. As such, I oppose it.

A conscript, dragged into a war will never fight with a flair and spirit of someone, who volunteered to fight for his country and felt, that this is the calling of his heart and soul. There gonna be draft dodgers, who would have to be arrested, while with volunteer army, they would be in the workforce instead of jail. Besides, ya' dragged a bunch of people, who don't wanna be here, so herding them would be hard. Teaching too, since there will be many of those not-so-warrior inclined folks. Logistics... supplying so many people is a non-trivial task too. And protests... And this is just a civil rights violation if ya' ask us.

Don't do that. Gonna give ya' much more problems than solve.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

The Sheika wrote:You have two military forces getting ready to go toe to toe, one is comprised of volunteers who are well-trained, more than adequately supplied, and most of all motivated to fight for their cause because they chose to. The opposing side is a mix of volunteers and conscripted individuals; although the numbers are there, the motivation to fight for the cause is not shared by everyone. On paper, numbers mean everything, but in practical exercise numbers are just part of a much larger equation where motivation is certainly a considerable factor.

OOC. On similar terms, the BEF fought the Germans at the start of the First world war: a highly trained, highly motivated, well-supplied expeditionary force of 50 thousand against the conscripted German army totalling over a million men. The BEF was simply overrun. If the BEF were there alone and not supported by the French 5th army, it would have been entirely surrounded and all men captured or killed.

One might also ask themselves why, facing the Revolutionary French levee en masse (Essentially a proto-draft), all warring Continental (AFAIK UK didn't) nations suddenly adopted the system that would later develop into the draft as we knew it leading up to WW1. It's almost like the conscripted soldier is equal, or close enough, to the volunteer which makes it a numbers game between two technologically and economically similar nations. If we set aside political costs and ethical considerations and look at the military benefits, conscripts are generally better because there are more of them, you can more easily recruit officers and you build up a large reserve, while any loss of efficiency is trivial. In The Sheikas example, the conscript army would win, overrun the volunteer nation and teach the neighbours to institute conscription themselves. "Military efficiency" is a bad argument to oppose conscription.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. In this forum, we draft international legislation that affects all GA member states. Well done for writing a draft here rather than immediately submitting, as this means feedback can be given. In this case, your draft unfortunately violates a few of the rules. Additionally, I suggest having a look at some passed resolutions for inspiration, as this is currently looking more like a suggestion than a piece of legislation.)

sure. sorry about it i am new here

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. On similar terms, the BEF fought the Germans at the start of the First world war: a highly trained, highly motivated, well-supplied expeditionary force of 50 thousand against the conscripted German army totalling over a million men. The BEF was simply overrun. If the BEF were there alone and not supported by the French 5th army, it would have been entirely surrounded and all men captured or killed.

One might also ask themselves why, facing the Revolutionary French levee en masse (Essentially a proto-draft), all warring Continental (AFAIK UK didn't) nations suddenly adopted the system that would later develop into the draft as we knew it leading up to WW1. It's almost like the conscripted soldier is equal, or close enough, to the volunteer which makes it a numbers game between two technologically and economically similar nations. If we set aside political costs and ethical considerations and look at the military benefits, conscripts are generally better because there are more of them, you can more easily recruit officers and you build up a large reserve, while any loss of efficiency is trivial. In The Sheikas example, the conscript army would win, overrun the volunteer nation and teach the neighbours to institute conscription themselves. "Military efficiency" is a bad argument to oppose conscription.

OOC: I would have to say that you made a fair call as far as bad arguments. I was thinking more in line with a conscripted military being stretched a little thinner as far as weaponry and supplies, BUT I should have taken the extra step to consider that is not always going to be the case. The correction is indeed appreciated.

The Sheika wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:One might also ask themselves why, facing the Revolutionary French levee en masse (Essentially a proto-draft), all warring Continental (AFAIK UK didn't) nations suddenly adopted the system that would later develop into the draft as we knew it leading up to WW1. It's almost like the conscripted soldier is equal, or close enough, to the volunteer which makes it a numbers game between two technologically and economically similar nations. If we set aside political costs and ethical considerations and look at the military benefits, conscripts are generally better because there are more of them, you can more easily recruit officers and you build up a large reserve, while any loss of efficiency is trivial. In The Sheikas example, the conscript army would win, overrun the volunteer nation and teach the neighbours to institute conscription themselves. "Military efficiency" is a bad argument to oppose conscription.

OOC: I would have to say that you made a fair call as far as bad arguments. I was thinking more in line with a conscripted military being stretched a little thinner as far as weaponry and supplies, BUT I should have taken the extra step to consider that is not always going to be the case. The correction is indeed appreciated.

Since it's slightly off topic I'll let this be my last point, just to elaborate because you mention weaponry and supplies. While they can be stretched, any nation with the sufficient economy (And bureaucracy) to mobilise hundreds of thousands will almost certainly also have the means to supply them with weapons. However, a conscripted military, even if stretched comparatively thin in terms of supplies and weaponry, will absolutely and utterly annihilate a comparable nation relying on volunteers. As IA said, the British Expeditionary Force sent to France in World War One was tiny (IA says 50 thousand, Wikipedia says 6 divisions = ~60.000) and simply destroyed by the German conscripts. Compare the Battle of Leipzig (~550.000 total combatants) or even Waterloo (~200.000) during the Napoleonic Wars to some of the largest battles in the Seven Years War before it (Such as Zorndorf, ~80.000, or Rossbach, ~60.000). The entire number of soldiers fielded during the Seven Years War are comparable to the total losses at Leipzig or Waterloo. At that point, stretching supplies and weaponry becomes largely irrelevant; the nation able to continually sustain those losses through conscription is the stronger and will do as they want, while the nation which can't or won't will be the weaker and suffer as they must, to paraphrase Thucydides. It's a brutal, inhuman reality, but true nevertheless, that a nation with a conscript army will basically always defeat an otherwise roughly equal nation with a volunteer army through better strategy (More pieces on the board, so to speak), better tactics (More regiments to move on the field), or by engaging the smaller army in a numbers game. The instances where volunteer armies defeated conscripts (E.g. 19th century British colonial ventures; 2003 Iraq War) have generally been won by superpowers or at least nations with vastly more resources and technological superiority.

Sky Reavers wrote:A conscript, dragged into a war will never fight with a flair and spirit of someone, who volunteered to fight for his country and felt, that this is the calling of his heart and soul. There gonna be draft dodgers, who would have to be arrested, while with volunteer army, they would be in the workforce instead of jail. Besides, ya' dragged a bunch of people, who don't wanna be here, so herding them would be hard. Teaching too, since there will be many of those not-so-warrior inclined folks. Logistics... supplying so many people is a non-trivial task too. And protests... And this is just a civil rights violation if ya' ask us.

Don't do that. Gonna give ya' much more problems than solve.

"Sir, draft dodgers only become a problem if the youth feels that they are fighting an unjust war, where the dodging numbers will indeed swell to catastrophic proportions. Otherwise, in peace time, draft dodging is mostly not a problem. The real problem is the youth having insufficient health conditions to serve in the military, which hits practically all peaceful modern nations anyway.

Regarding logistics, any country that instituted a draft in the first place will almost certainly have the means to supply and train such a large force. While a conscript army may have less experience and training than an all-voluteer army (due to strains on logistics and training), the difference is not large enough, provided that both armies are sufficiently and competently trained, to imply that volunteer armies will always crush conscript ones. The effectiveness of an army is not just with numbers, morale and logistics, it also includes technology, experienced officers and NCOs, tactics, strategical planning and propaganda.

An all-volunteer army can be crushed by a conscript army if the number difference is too great or the tactics used are superior, provided that their material and logistical conditions are the same. Not even experience can save you from a horde of men and steel, armed with skills and determined to kill."

Why don't you actually post a resolution text?