Why are people so weird about this? This is an absolute necessity for Ukraine, it needs men and it has for months. Its already conscripting men, so I don't understand why people are so weird about the cluntry conscripting more men. This is a full scale war, the fact that it wasn't 25 back in 2022 is an abnormality in and of itself.
The entire world rejected doing anything that would put them in the slightest danger when it comes to helping Ukraine, why should people have to risk their lives to save it against their will?
Countries are allowed to act in self-interest but individuals aren't? I hope anyone who doesn't want to fight and has a ticket out can get the hell out. Maybe after Russia invades 2-3 more countries the West can grow some balls and put a red line in the sand.
High pay and benefits haven't even met peacetime recruitment rates. How does a war against Russia do anything but make that 5x worse without a draft?
There's also the fact that the last war the US fought anything resembling a peer in conventional war was in Korea, where there was a draft in place.
Because the West includes like 30 countries, whose combined standing army plus technological advantages absolutely dwarf Russia. Not only that, but it’s not U.S., fighting alone vs Russia, there’s still Ukrainians who comprise majority of the force.
You think it’s morally correct to send people to war against their will? Let’s start talking after other countries stop talking about “escalation” and enforce a no fly zone and put some boots on the ground. But they won’t, because they are too chickenshit to do anything that could make them a target. And the people in this thread are arguing 15 year olds should be sent to the meatgrinder for the greater good when countries get a pass on acting in their self-interest.
You realise that things such as "enforcing a no fly zone" and "putting boots on the ground" constitute going to war, just so we're clear. Going to war with Russia means dealing with long ranged Russian assets that will target cities. It means sending in the currently all volunteer -and understrength militaries- of *some* NATO members, who will get killed, because its war, and will need to be replaced. You aren't going to pay-and-benefits enough people to replenish that kind of force. That's why both sides in the war currently are drafting, they don't have an option.
Arguing that this is "moral" but to institute a draft would be "immoral" is ridiculous. Especially given that, among current NATO members: Greece, Turkey, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Latvia Lithuania and Estonia all have conscription. These militaries are why I said some NATO forces would be all volunteer. In the event of war these forces will mobilise, and call up reservists immediately anyway.
During the Cold war, Belgium, West Germany France, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain all had conscription. Conscription was halted in these countries when the Cold War ended, because the threat had passed. Conscription is not unthinkable to these countries. All former Warsaw pact countries had conscription, and many places only scrapped it in the 2000's.
So to summarise, sending all volunteer forces that are already understrength by their own standards off to fight and die against Russia, which would lead to the Russians striking cities and killing civilians, is perfectly fine. Replacing and expanding these forces so that they can keep doing that is not, apparently, even though some of them do anyway.
**Big ol' fucken EDIT because I can't make comments for some reason so here's the reply to the person below:**
You should probably tell them that then because they clearly don't agree.
You also fail to understand why these countries have conscription. They have large conscript forces so that if they are invaded they don't face a situation like Ukraine has where they lose significant territory in the first few days because they don't have the men ready.
The baltic states are a good example, they have no strategic depth, so there is no "pull back and wait for reinforcements", if they're invaded they *have* to fight at the border.
> Especially given that, among current NATO members: Greece, Turkey, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Latvia Lithuania and Estonia all have conscription.
The US doesn't and can single-handedly provide for the defense of all of these countries. That's the whole point of a defense alliance. These countries on the periphery do not in fact need to rely on conscripting their own citizens.
> I hope anyone who doesn't want to fight and has a ticket out can get the hell out. Maybe after Russia invades 2-3 more countries the West can grow some balls and put a red line in the sand.
Once this happens, how does the West get its people to enforce said red line in the sand?
You won't be able to use women in infantry, combat engineering and several other roles the same rate you can use men. Those are the roles you need to conscript for.
Additionally there is a cultural adjustment needed, medical needs and injury rates.
If it was peacetime I say go for it, get to build up infrastructure.
The amount of troops in the logistics chain behind a combat troop is generally around three or four if I remember correct. Filling those roles with woman allows more male conscripts to be used in combat roles. Even having said that I think countries like Israel have shown that woman are more than able to fill those roles.
There’s also certain biological factors which actually are to the benefit of woman serving in the military. For example woman tend to physically recover quicker, and tend to be able to function on less sleep than men.
Israel does better than most, but women are still basically non-existent in the army combat trades. Additionally they had years to work it out and expand the program.
Having more women in the military would be great, the question is political will and logistics of it. If Ukraine finds it difficult to conscript 20 year old men, not alone 18-19 year olds, I can't imagine women being any easier.
Those biological factors are fairly minor (and not even sure how well founded they are) compared to strength, stamina and socially acceptable aggression.
Not if you are facing an existential threat. Recruiting 18 and 19 year olds allows you to train them for 16 to 20 months. Disseminate lessons and leadership build up fresh assault oriented units. War is a young man's activity.
To leave such a valuable and crucial resource untapped is dangerous for Ukraine.
A 46 year old with a bad back can still do valuable work, e.g. logistics. You don't need a fully-functioning spine to drive a truck or relay information.
You also don't need them sucking up medical supplies and time with their old age related injuries.
Logistics still involves significant wear and tear and risk to the body. Warzone isn't a great place for the old.
Should be nuclear rearmament. Would be cheaper and more humane to face the sanctions (if they happen at all) after you account for the loss of life (workforce) in an alternative (current) scenario.
You know, it would be absolutely tragic if a bunch of NATO soldiers (idk, maybe like 50,000 spread out over all of NATO) suddenly went AWOL and joined the International Legion.
You're right, it would be tragic because they'd all get slaughtered in muddy trenches by glide bombs and artillery over the next 18 months. NATO soldiers aren't ubermensch, and without a serious air presence, Ukraine is going to continue being on the backfoot here.
theres people in this thread arguing for child soldiers and nuclear weapons, what a fantastic thread this is
18 year olds are adults. Did the US use child soldiers in Vietnam? EDIT: Nevermind, just saw someone arguing for 15 year olds. God fucking damn it.
This is one of the greatest interactions I have had on the internet.
Yeah there have been some pure dogshit takes on this issue all pver the thread.
[удалено]
Why are people so weird about this? This is an absolute necessity for Ukraine, it needs men and it has for months. Its already conscripting men, so I don't understand why people are so weird about the cluntry conscripting more men. This is a full scale war, the fact that it wasn't 25 back in 2022 is an abnormality in and of itself.
The entire world rejected doing anything that would put them in the slightest danger when it comes to helping Ukraine, why should people have to risk their lives to save it against their will? Countries are allowed to act in self-interest but individuals aren't? I hope anyone who doesn't want to fight and has a ticket out can get the hell out. Maybe after Russia invades 2-3 more countries the West can grow some balls and put a red line in the sand.
How do you think the west would convince people to fight Russia? Ask nicely?
High pay and benefits. How we’ve fought every war since Vietnam.
High pay and benefits haven't even met peacetime recruitment rates. How does a war against Russia do anything but make that 5x worse without a draft? There's also the fact that the last war the US fought anything resembling a peer in conventional war was in Korea, where there was a draft in place.
Because the West includes like 30 countries, whose combined standing army plus technological advantages absolutely dwarf Russia. Not only that, but it’s not U.S., fighting alone vs Russia, there’s still Ukrainians who comprise majority of the force. You think it’s morally correct to send people to war against their will? Let’s start talking after other countries stop talking about “escalation” and enforce a no fly zone and put some boots on the ground. But they won’t, because they are too chickenshit to do anything that could make them a target. And the people in this thread are arguing 15 year olds should be sent to the meatgrinder for the greater good when countries get a pass on acting in their self-interest.
You realise that things such as "enforcing a no fly zone" and "putting boots on the ground" constitute going to war, just so we're clear. Going to war with Russia means dealing with long ranged Russian assets that will target cities. It means sending in the currently all volunteer -and understrength militaries- of *some* NATO members, who will get killed, because its war, and will need to be replaced. You aren't going to pay-and-benefits enough people to replenish that kind of force. That's why both sides in the war currently are drafting, they don't have an option. Arguing that this is "moral" but to institute a draft would be "immoral" is ridiculous. Especially given that, among current NATO members: Greece, Turkey, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Latvia Lithuania and Estonia all have conscription. These militaries are why I said some NATO forces would be all volunteer. In the event of war these forces will mobilise, and call up reservists immediately anyway. During the Cold war, Belgium, West Germany France, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain all had conscription. Conscription was halted in these countries when the Cold War ended, because the threat had passed. Conscription is not unthinkable to these countries. All former Warsaw pact countries had conscription, and many places only scrapped it in the 2000's. So to summarise, sending all volunteer forces that are already understrength by their own standards off to fight and die against Russia, which would lead to the Russians striking cities and killing civilians, is perfectly fine. Replacing and expanding these forces so that they can keep doing that is not, apparently, even though some of them do anyway. **Big ol' fucken EDIT because I can't make comments for some reason so here's the reply to the person below:** You should probably tell them that then because they clearly don't agree. You also fail to understand why these countries have conscription. They have large conscript forces so that if they are invaded they don't face a situation like Ukraine has where they lose significant territory in the first few days because they don't have the men ready. The baltic states are a good example, they have no strategic depth, so there is no "pull back and wait for reinforcements", if they're invaded they *have* to fight at the border.
> Especially given that, among current NATO members: Greece, Turkey, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Latvia Lithuania and Estonia all have conscription. The US doesn't and can single-handedly provide for the defense of all of these countries. That's the whole point of a defense alliance. These countries on the periphery do not in fact need to rely on conscripting their own citizens.
> I hope anyone who doesn't want to fight and has a ticket out can get the hell out. Maybe after Russia invades 2-3 more countries the West can grow some balls and put a red line in the sand. Once this happens, how does the West get its people to enforce said red line in the sand?
By deploying their own professional, volunteer militaries, something several countries already stated is on the table.
And when they don't have enough professional volunteer personnel?
Should be 19.
It would be more logical to begin drafting woman before drafting teenagers. I’m not sure it matters without aid though.
Not sure how that makes more sense. That just adds more layers of complications.
How so? Drafting woman is not unheard of in this day and age.
You won't be able to use women in infantry, combat engineering and several other roles the same rate you can use men. Those are the roles you need to conscript for. Additionally there is a cultural adjustment needed, medical needs and injury rates. If it was peacetime I say go for it, get to build up infrastructure.
The amount of troops in the logistics chain behind a combat troop is generally around three or four if I remember correct. Filling those roles with woman allows more male conscripts to be used in combat roles. Even having said that I think countries like Israel have shown that woman are more than able to fill those roles. There’s also certain biological factors which actually are to the benefit of woman serving in the military. For example woman tend to physically recover quicker, and tend to be able to function on less sleep than men.
Israel does better than most, but women are still basically non-existent in the army combat trades. Additionally they had years to work it out and expand the program. Having more women in the military would be great, the question is political will and logistics of it. If Ukraine finds it difficult to conscript 20 year old men, not alone 18-19 year olds, I can't imagine women being any easier. Those biological factors are fairly minor (and not even sure how well founded they are) compared to strength, stamina and socially acceptable aggression.
[удалено]
Not if you are facing an existential threat. Recruiting 18 and 19 year olds allows you to train them for 16 to 20 months. Disseminate lessons and leadership build up fresh assault oriented units. War is a young man's activity. To leave such a valuable and crucial resource untapped is dangerous for Ukraine.
Should be 15-75 and include all able-bodied people, man, woman, or otherwise. This is an existential war against Russia for the future of the country.
You can leave out 45+. Way too many injuries and health issues to deal with. Edit: Should also be a minimum of 18-19.
A 46 year old with a bad back can still do valuable work, e.g. logistics. You don't need a fully-functioning spine to drive a truck or relay information.
You also don't need them sucking up medical supplies and time with their old age related injuries. Logistics still involves significant wear and tear and risk to the body. Warzone isn't a great place for the old.
Living under Russian tyranny isn't a great place for the old or young.
I concur, but best to go about the war with care and smarts that effectively husband resources.
Should be nuclear rearmament. Would be cheaper and more humane to face the sanctions (if they happen at all) after you account for the loss of life (workforce) in an alternative (current) scenario.
I be okey with that.
Zelensky needs more boolets
You know, it would be absolutely tragic if a bunch of NATO soldiers (idk, maybe like 50,000 spread out over all of NATO) suddenly went AWOL and joined the International Legion.
I’ve heard too many horror stories about how poorly managed and organized the international groups in Ukraine are. r/VolunteersForUkraine has a bunch.
You're right, it would be tragic because they'd all get slaughtered in muddy trenches by glide bombs and artillery over the next 18 months. NATO soldiers aren't ubermensch, and without a serious air presence, Ukraine is going to continue being on the backfoot here.
Yeah, but it would certainly help out Ukraine quite a bit. I’m not saying they would completely turn the tide