this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26884 readers
3718 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Prompted by another thread about conscription in Ukraine.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

None. If you weren't willing to fight for your country, then it's just the powerful forcing you to keep them in power.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

None, if the people won't voluntarily defend a nation, then they have decided it isn't worth defending.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

What if a person is willing to fight to defend only if others are going to do so as well.

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

None. It is never acceptable imho.

We do not choose where we are born or the social class we are born into. Forcing someone to sacrifice their life in the name of an entity they did not choose, likely have no/limited loyalty for, or might even be actively oppressed by - is wrong.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

When you're being invaded.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

When everyone is being drafted. Including the children of the oligarchs and political class.

Otherwise it's never right. It's just feeding the poor to the war machine.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Rich people are humans too and also have rights.

Subjecting rich people to the same violations of their rights doesn’t make the thing okay.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

So, you're saying conscription is always wrong? I'm certainly more okay with that then the idea that the poors should die to protect countries.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So if for example every person's name goes in the hat, and then conscripts are drawn at random? I only clarify because in a situation where every able body is fighting you've already lost, there needs to be logistics, maintaining utilities, growing food, etc

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Drafts usually are of young men for the logistic reasons you mentioned.

So, if all men ages 18-24 are being drafted, the President's kids should be first on the list.

In other words, if you're going to send my son to war and you are president you need to send your's first. Otherwise I'm telling my kid to dodge because his life isn't worth less than some rich assholes.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I only clarify because in a situation where every able body is fighting you’ve already lost, there needs to be logistics, maintaining utilities, growing food, etc

Conscription is actually a way to ensure that. In the Ukrainian War, as well as at least the US during WW2 (I'm less familiar with other countries' conscription systems during WW2), conscription is used to prioritize those with skills which are not economically vital during wartime - during WW2, even, some skilled workers weren't even allowed to volunteer, much less be conscripted, for military service.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Examples of those skills?

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I didn't see it yet, so I'll say in a humanitarian crisis.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 2 points 4 months ago

It's only okay when the alternative is "your entire population is killed." If you're not fighting a defensive war with high stakes, then it's just a way to kill poor people and political dissidents.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I guess when the people being drafted have a higher likelihood of being killed by an invading army without the draft than with it. Tough to assess though.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for your thought. What about a situation where you know everyone won't be killed, but the defeated country will no longer be democratic/open? In other words, you'll live, but the quality of life will be much worse for the foreseeable future

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

That’s a tough one. There’s no obvious moral calculus to translate between lives lost and quality of life.

I tend to think drafting is similar to slavery—it’s a grave violation of basic human rights and should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances where the alternative is clearly worse.

It might depend on the exact nature of the authoritarian regime. Or maybe I’m just not comfortable with either outcome and so I don’t want to answer the question.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I used to be against the draft or conscription, but someone made the argument that people are far less war hungry when they or their loved ones might end up on the front lines. In that case, I'm all for it as long as the rich, politically connected, and otherwise privileged are treated like the rest of us. Otherwise the next best option is an all volunteer military.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But without conscription, everyone involved in the war is there by choice.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 1 points 4 months ago

I still don't want those people to risk life and limb because the powerful people in our country decided to send them to war. With conscription people are less likely to vote for candidates that might send them to war.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Since no one has mentioned it, I think the draft is okay if it allows for conscientious objection. Realistically, most people aren't against the draft because they're against killing, they're against dying (which is fair). The thing is, almost no one wants to die, and sometimes war is inevitable (or at least out of your hands). So if people are against killing, that shouldn't be a problem. There are plenty of positions on the front lines, in forward positions, and in secure positions that need to be fulfilled where killing is neither necessary nor likely. So let them be cooks, clerks, maintenance, medics, etc.

Of course, conscripting should be fair and logistically beneficial for the country, like others mentioned. Sending teachers to war does more harm to the next generation than it helps the current one, for instance, and if you're at the point where even the teachers are needed you're looking at taking generations to recover even if your country survives.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

If 100% of a country’s military-eligible people vote for it, then it’s okay.

[–] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

None.

I think that the exact measure of whether or not a war is justified is whether or not people are willing to fight it.

It's very rare for a war to be a direct threat to the people. That's generally only the case in a situation like Gaza, in which the invaders explicitly intend to not only take control of the land, but to kill or drive off the current inhabitants.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

So the war is generally not fought to protect and/or serve the interests of the people directly, but to protect and/or serve the interests of the ruling class. And rather obviously, the ruling class has a vested interest in the people fighting to protect them and/or serve their interests. But the thing is that the people do not necessarily share that interest.

And that, IMO, is exactly why conscription is always wrong. If the people do not feel a need to protect and/or serve the interests of the rulers, then that's just the way it is. That choice rightly belongs to the people - not to the rulers.

[–] Jako301@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

Yeah no, that's just plain wrong. Russia, at the very least, is committing cultural genocide if not much worse. Ukrainian families get broken up so their kids can be better indoctrinated.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Like others have said defensive wars. But I also don't take issues with a countries that have a brief compulsory service system in times of peace as a means of ensuring a large pool of qualified fighters without a large standing army.